Studies of food addiction have focused on highly palatable foods. While fast food falls squarely into that category, it has several other attributes that may increase its salience. This review examines whether the nutrients present in fast food, the characteristics of fast food consumers or the presentation and packaging of fast food may encourage substance dependence, as defined by the American Psychiatric Association. The majority of fast food meals are accompanied by a soda, which increases the sugar content 10-fold. Sugar addiction, including tolerance and withdrawal, has been demonstrated in rodents but not humans. Caffeine is a “model” substance of dependence; coffee drinks are driving the recent increase in fast food sales. Limited evidence suggests that the high fat and salt content of fast food may increase addictive potential. Fast food restaurants cluster in poorer neighborhoods and obese adults eat more fast food than those who are normal weight. Obesity is characterized by resistance to insulin, leptin and other hormonal signals that would normally control appetite and limit reward. Neuroimaging studies in obese subjects provide evidence of altered reward and tolerance. Once obese, many individuals meet criteria for psychological dependence. Stress and dieting may sensitize an individual to reward. Finally, fast food advertisements, restaurants and menus all provide environmental cues that may trigger addictive overeating. While the concept of fast food addiction remains to be proven, these findings support the role of fast food as a potentially addictive substance that is most likely to create dependence in vulnerable populations.
Also, while I don’t find pizza to be at all addictive, my experience is that hamburgers are very much so. I’ve had experiences where I successfully avoided eating any meat for two months in a row, then succumbed to the temptation of eating a single hamburger and then ate some several times a week for the next month.
It’s really a definitions argument, about what one can/should apply the word “addiction” to. As such it’s not very interesting, at least until it gets to connotations and consequences (e.g. if it’s an addiction, the government can regulate it or make it illegal).
succumbed to the temptation
It’s human to succumb to temptations. Not all temptations are addictions.
Succumbing to a temptation occasionally is one thing. But even a single case of that happening leading to a month-long relapse? That’s much more addiction-ish.
It’s really a definitions argument, about what one can/should apply the word “addiction” to. As such it’s not very interesting, at least until it gets to connotations and consequences (e.g. if it’s an addiction, the government can regulate it or make it illegal).
The government can regulate or ban things as public health risks which are not deemed addictions though, and things which are recognized as addictive are not necessarily regulated or banned.
All true, but if you look at it from a different side: if you want to regulate or ban something, would you rather call it an addiction or an unfortunate exercise of the freedom choice? :-)
If you’re liberal enough about what people are allowed to do, should you call anything an addiction? I’m not sure if politics connotatively hijacking scientific terminology is a good reason to change the terminology. Would you suggest something like that?
If you’re liberal enough about what people are allowed to do, should you call anything an addiction?
Sure. I would call things which change your personal biochemistry in the medium term (e.g. opiates) addictive. I think it’s a reasonable use of the term.
There are opiate receptors in the brain because your brain produces transmitters that bind to those receptors. You should expect certain behaviours you engage to change your personal biochemistry in various time spans as well.
Well, the latter characterization would certainly not aid me in my attempts to get it banned, but if calling it an addiction were likely to result in semantic squabbling, I’d probably just call it a public health risk.
Also, while I don’t find pizza to be at all addictive, my experience is that hamburgers are very much so. I’ve had experiences where I successfully avoided eating any meat for two months in a row, then succumbed to the temptation of eating a single hamburger and then ate some several times a week for the next month.
Interesting. I just get such consistent meat cravings that I don’t even bother trying to not eat meat. I just buy a certain amount and eat it as a basic food group.
Contrary opinion:
Also, while I don’t find pizza to be at all addictive, my experience is that hamburgers are very much so. I’ve had experiences where I successfully avoided eating any meat for two months in a row, then succumbed to the temptation of eating a single hamburger and then ate some several times a week for the next month.
Yes, I am aware that such exist :-)
It’s really a definitions argument, about what one can/should apply the word “addiction” to. As such it’s not very interesting, at least until it gets to connotations and consequences (e.g. if it’s an addiction, the government can regulate it or make it illegal).
It’s human to succumb to temptations. Not all temptations are addictions.
Succumbing to a temptation occasionally is one thing. But even a single case of that happening leading to a month-long relapse? That’s much more addiction-ish.
The government can regulate or ban things as public health risks which are not deemed addictions though, and things which are recognized as addictive are not necessarily regulated or banned.
All true, but if you look at it from a different side: if you want to regulate or ban something, would you rather call it an addiction or an unfortunate exercise of the freedom choice? :-)
If you’re liberal enough about what people are allowed to do, should you call anything an addiction? I’m not sure if politics connotatively hijacking scientific terminology is a good reason to change the terminology. Would you suggest something like that?
Sure. I would call things which change your personal biochemistry in the medium term (e.g. opiates) addictive. I think it’s a reasonable use of the term.
There are opiate receptors in the brain because your brain produces transmitters that bind to those receptors. You should expect certain behaviours you engage to change your personal biochemistry in various time spans as well.
A fair point. I should add probably the necessity of a positive feedback loop to the definition.
Well, the latter characterization would certainly not aid me in my attempts to get it banned, but if calling it an addiction were likely to result in semantic squabbling, I’d probably just call it a public health risk.
Interesting. I just get such consistent meat cravings that I don’t even bother trying to not eat meat. I just buy a certain amount and eat it as a basic food group.