Loss, but not absence, of control – How choice and addiction are related

In a recent post the notion that “loss of control” is an addiction myth was raised by our contributing author, Christopher Russell, a thoughtful graduate student studying substance abuse in the U.K. Though I obviously personally believe in control- and choice-relevant neurological mechanisms playing a part in addiction, this conversation is a common one both within and outside of the drug abuse field. Therefore, I welcome the discussion onto our pages. I’d like to start out by reviewing some of the more abstract differences between my view and the one expressed by Christopher and follow those with some evidence to support my view and refute the evidence brought forth by him.

Addiction conceptualization – Philosophical and logical differences and misinterpretations

One of the first issues I take with the argument against control as a major factor in drug addiction is the interpretation of the phrase “loss of control” as meaning absence, rather than a reduction, in control over addiction and addictive behavior. Clearly though, one of the definitions of loss is a “decrease in amount, magnitude, or degree” (from Merriam-Webster.com) and not the destruction of something. Science is an exercise in probabilities so when scientists say “loss”, they mean a decrease and not a complete absence in the same way that findings showing that smoking cigarettes causes cancer do not mean that if an individual smokes cigarettes they will inevitably develop cancerous tumors. Similarly, the word “can’t” colloquially means having a low probability of success and not the complete inability to succeed. Intervention that improve the probability of quitting smoking (like bupropion or quitlines for smoking) success are therefore said to cause improvements in the capacity for quitting.

Next, Christopher wants scientists to identify the source of “will” in the brain but I suggest that “will” itself is simply a term he has given a behavioral outcome – the ability to make a choice that falls in line with expectations. In actuality, “will” is more commonly used as a reference to motivation, which while measurable, isn’t really the aspect of addiction involved in cognitive control. Instead, what we’re talking about is “capacity” to make a choice. The issue is a significant, not semantic one, since the argument most neuroscientists make about drug abuse is that addicts suffer a reduced capacity to make appropriate behavioral choices, especially as they pertain to engaging in the addictive behavior of interest. If someone is attempting to get into a car but repeatedly fails, we say they can’t get in the car (capacity), not that they don’t want to (will). Saying that they simply “don’t” get in the car doesn’t get at either capacity or will but instead is simply descriptive. I don’t believe that science is, or should be, merely descriptive but instead that it allows us to form conclusions based on available information.

That there is a segment of individuals who develop compulsive behavioral patterns tied to alcohol and drug use and who attempt to stop but fail is, to my mind, evidence that those individuals have a difficulty (capacity) in stopping their drug use. Their motivation (will) to quit is an aspect that has been shown to be associated with their probability of success but the two are by no means synonymous. It is important to note, and understand, that the attribution for the performance should not fall squarely on the shoulders of the individuals. We humans are so prone to making that mistake that it has a name, “The fundamental attribution error,” and indeed, individuals who show compulsive, addictive, behavior do so because of neuropharmacological, environmental, and social reasons in addition to the complex interactions between them all. But no one is disputing that and in fact, the article used by Christopher to point out the notion of a “tipping point” in addiction directly points out that fact in the next paragraph (Page 4), which he chose not to reference or acknowledge.

“Of course, addiction is not that simple. Addiction is not just a brain disease. It is a brain disease for which the social contexts in which it has both developed and is expressed are critically important… The implications are obvious. If we understand addiction as a prototypical psychobiological illness, with critical biological, behavioral, and social-context components, our treatment strategies must include biological, behavioral, and social-context elements.” (Lashner, 1997)

Lastly, Christopher’s philosophical musings are interesting, but they seem to stray away from trying to find an explanation for behavior and instead simply deconstruct evidence. In a personal communication I explained that while most addiction researchers understand that addiction, like most other mental health disorders is composed of a continuum of control ranging from absolute control over behavior to no control whatsoever (with most people fitting somewhere in the middle and few if any at the extreme ends), categorization is a necessary evil of clinical treatment. The same is true for every quantitative measure from height (Dwarfism is sometimes defined as adults who are shorter than 4’10”) to weight (BMI greater than 30 kg/m²). I think it’s equally as tough to argue that someone with a BMI of 29.5 is distinctly different from an individual with a BMI of 30 as it is to argue that there is no utility in the classification. Well, the same applies for drug addiction, although some people categorically object to classification and believe it has no utility or justification.

Now for the evidence – “Choice” and “control” are not the same as “will”

Some people quit, even without help – Christopher and a number of the people he cites in support (Peele, Alexander), suggest that because some people do stop using that it can’t be said that there is a problem with any individuals’ capacity to stop. The problem with that argument is that it supposes that everyone is the same, a fact that is simply false. As an example I would like to suggest that we compare cognitive control with physical control and use Huntington’s Disease (HD or Huntington’s Chorea) as an example.

HD patients suffer mental dementia but the physical symptoms of the disease, an inability to control their physical movement resulting in flailing limbs often referred to as the Huntington Dance, are almost always the first noticeable symptoms. Nevertheless, HD sufferers experience a number of debilitating symptoms that originate in brain dysfunction (specifically destruction of striatum neurons, the substantia nigra, and hippocampus) and that alter their ability (capacity) to control their movements and affect their memory and executive function leading to problems in planning and higher order thought processes. So, while it is true that most people can control their arm movements, here is an example of individuals who progressively become worse and worse at doing so due to a neurophramacological disorder. There is currently no cure for HD but some medications that help treat it no doubt restore some of the capacity of these patients to control their movements. If a cure is found it would be difficult to say, as Christopher suggests of addiction, that the cure does not affect the capacity of HD patients to control what they once could not. I chose HD for its physiological set of symptoms but a similar example could easily be constructed for schizophrenia and a number of other mental health disorders (including ADHD and drug addiction). Importantly, cognitive control is a function of brain activity, activity that can become compromised as the set of experiment I will discuss next show.

An experiment conducted at UCLA (1) has shown that cocaine administrations reduced animals’ ability to change their behavior when environmental conditions called for it. Even more meaningful was the finding that once animals are exposed to daily doses of drugs, the way their learning systems function is altered even when the drugs themselves are no longer on board and even when the learning has nothing to do with drugs per se.

In the experiment, conducted by Dr. David Jentsch and colleagues, monkeys were given either a single dose (less than the equivalent of a tenth of a gram for a 150lb human) or repeated doses (1/8 to 1/4 of a gram equivalent once daily for 14 days) of cocaine. The task involved learning an initial association between the location of food in one of three boxes and then learning that the location of the food has changed. We call this task reversal learning since animals have to unlearn an established relationship to learn a new one.

Obviously, the animals want the food, and so the appropriate response once the location is changed is to stop picking the old location and move on to the new one that now holds the coveted food. This sort of thing happens all the time in life and indeed, during addiction it seems that people have trouble adjusting their behavior when taking drugs is no longer rewarding and is, in fact, even troublesome (as in leading to jail, family breakups, etc.).

In the experiment, animals exposed to cocaine had trouble (when compared to control animals that got an injection of saline water) learning to reverse their selection when tested 20 minutes after getting the drug, which is not surprising but still an example of how drug administration can causally affect an individual’s ability to make appropriate choices. As pointed above, the most interesting finding had to do with the animals that got a dose of cocaine every day for 14 days. Even after a full week of being off the drug, these animals showed an interesting effect that persisted for a month – while their ability to learn that initial food-box association, they had significant trouble changing their selection once the conditions changed. Remember, this effect was present with no cocaine in their system and with learning conditions that had nothing whatsoever to do with cocaine.

If that’s not direct evidence that having drugs in your system can alter the way your brain makes choices, I don’t know what is.

Another study conducted by Calu and colleagues with rats found similar (or even more pronounced) reversal learning problems after training the animals to take cocaine for themselves, clarifying that it is the taking of cocaine and not the method that causes the impairments.

Another entire set of studies has shown that stimuli (also known as cues or triggers) that have become associated with drugs can bring back long-forgotten drug-seeking behavior once they are reintroduced. This was shown in that Calu paper I mentioned above and in so many other articles that it would be wasteful to go through all the evidence here. Importantly, this evidence shows that drug associated cues direct behavior towards drug seeking in a way that biases behavior regardless of any underlying will. My own research has shown that animals who respond greatly to drugs (nicotine in our case) likely learn to integrate more of these triggers than animals who show a reduced response, indicating once again that these animals bias  their behavioral selection towards drug-seeking more than usual. While we have more studies to conduct, we believe that genetic differences relevant to dopamine and possibly other neurotransmitters important for learning (like Glutamate) are responsible for this effect.

While we can’t do these kinds of experiments with people (research approval committee’s just won’t let you give drugs to people who haven’t used them before), there is quite a bit of evidence showing an association between trouble in reversal learning and chronic drug use in humans (see citation 3 for example) as well as research showing very different brain activity among addicted individuals to drug-associated versus non-drug cues (like seeing a crack pipe versus a building). All this evidence suggests that drug users are different in the way they learn generally, and more specifically about drugs, than individuals not addicted to drugs. When it comes to genetics, we know quite a bit about the  association between substance abuse and specific genes, especially when it comes to dopamine function. As expected, genetic variation in dopamine receptor subtypes important in learning about rewards (D4 and D2) has been revealed to exist between addicts and non addicts. Without getting into the techniques and analysis methods involved in these genetic studies, their sheer number and the relationship between substance abuse and other impulse disorders points to a direct relationship between drug use disorders (and possibly other addictive disorders) and a reduced capacity to exert behavioral control. Less capacity for control is what researchers have found sets addict apart from non-addicts.

Summary, conclusions, and final thoughts

The toyota Prius is slow but efficientIn closing, there are undoubtedly imperfections about the ways we diagnose addiction (drug addiction and others). It would probably be nice if we could figure out a way to incorporate what we know about the continuous nature of the disorder with the need for clinical delineation of who requires addiction treatment and who doesn’t. Addiction researchers are far from the only ones who wonder about this question though (the same issues are relevant for schizophrenia, depression, and nearly every mental health disorder) and I am certain that better and better solutions will emerge.

However, the discussion of stigma in this context needs to allow us to discuss the reality of addiction without having to resort to blaming and counter-blaming. If I describe the Toyota Prius as being slow but incredibly efficient I am no more stigmatizing than if I describe a Ferrari as being incredibly fact but wasteful in terms of fuel. The same applies, or should apply, to health and mental health diagnoses – Just because an individual is less able to exert cognitive control over impulses should not by definition call into question their standing as a human being. We are complex machines and by improving our understanding of the nuts and bolts that make us function we can only, in my opinion, improve our ability to make the best use of our capabilities while understanding our relative strengths and weaknesses. Any other way of looking at it seems to me to be either wishful (I can do anything if I want it badly enough) or defeatist (I will never be anything because I’m not good at X) and neither seem like good options to me.

Citations:

1) Jentsch, Olausson, De La Garza, and Tylor (2002): Impairments of Reversal Learning and Response Perseveration after Repeated, Intermittent Cocaine Administrations to Monkeys. Neuropsychopharmacology, Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 183-190

2) Calu et al (2007) Withdrawal from cocaine self-administration produces long-lasting deficits in orbitofrontal-dependent reversal learning in rats. Learning & Memory, 14, 325-328.

3) Some evidence in humans from Trevor Robbins’ group: Reversal deficits in current chronic cocaine users.

About Addiction: Addiction Recovery, Alcohol, and Drug Legalization

Yes, you’ve got it, it’s your 30 seconds of news about addiction from around the world (wide web). Enjoy the reading – you can claim you learned your “new thing of the day.”

Addiction recovery- Inpatient and Outpatient treatment plans

Addiction Recovery-Recovering from addiction is hard, no matter what type of addiction it is. In order to complete a successful recovery from addiction, a positive attitude helps. Holding a positive attitude increases the chances that the recovery attempt will be a successful one. We’ve written often about addiction treatment and tips to increase sucess.

Recovery Now– What are the stages to inpatient addiction treatment? According to Recovery Now, the stages of inpatient treatment include:  intake, detox, stabilization, and long term recovery. Though I don’t necessarily agree with every aspect of this article, it contains some good information about addiction treatment that every reader should know. This additional piece from Recovery Now discusses the appropriateness of inpatient versus outpatient addiction treatment for specific patients.

Alcohol use

Science Daily– We’ve talked about the link that has been found between family history of alcoholism and an individual’s obesity risk.  In this study a family history of alcoholism produced an increased risk for obesity, though the environment also played a large role in this link. Environmental factors include the types of foods that are eaten- foods that are typically high in calories from sugars, salt and fat.

Desert News– Everyone knows at least one person whose life has been affected by alcohol abuse in some form or another. Here is a story of how alcohol negatively affected a woman’s life and how it overtook her life ultimately leading to her death.

The Sydney Morning Herald– Drunk Driving is not just a problem in the United States, driving under the influence of alcohol appears to be a problem in other countries as well.  In Australia almost 1,400 people were arrested for alcohol-related offenses.

AOL Health-There is a multitude of information found on billboards and in TV commercials which explains the risks of drunk and drugged driving. Despite this information 30 million Americans are driving drunk each year and 10 million are driving while they are under the influence of drugs. This problem is very serious and is most problematic among drivers who are aged 16-25. Although there has been a drop in the overall number of individuals who are driving while they are under the influence, one in three car accidents still occur from drunk driving.

Drugs- The dangers of legal drugs, Marijuana, Adderall, and Methadone

Belfast TelegraphAlcohol and legal drugs are okay in small doses and can even be helpful in medical settings and for overall health. However it is important to note that there have been many more alcohol related deaths than deaths from illegal substances such as heroin and crystal meth. By far alcohol is the greatest perpetrator followed by prescription drugs including amphetamines, benzodiazepines and antidepressants. In Ireland in 2009 alone there were 283 alcohol-related deaths were registered in the north and 276 the previous year.

NIH News- There has been a recent increase in marijuana use among 8th graders according to NIDA’s monitoring the future survey. It was reported that the rate of eighth-graders who are using illicit drugs is 16 percent, a 2.5 increase from the previous year’s use of 14.5 percent. Among high school seniors cigarette use has declined but marijuana, ecstasy and prescription drug use has increased. Marijuana use among adolescents is so problematic because it affects the brains development as well as a person’s learning, judgment, and motor skills. Additionally 1 in 6 people who start using it as adolescents become addicted. The spike in the drug use may be attributed to the debate on legalization which may give a false impression that the drug has no negative effects or consequences.

‘WisconsinWatch.org– Use of Adderall, a medication for ADHD, is on the rise and in demand on many college campuses. Adderall is increasing in popularity and is easily accessible on college campuses because it helps individuals study.  The drug is particularly popular in the University of Wisconsin and many students are taking it despite the negative side effects it may bring. School officials are not educating the university population of the ill effects of Adderall so it continues to be used as a study aid. At least part of the worry has to do with the potential for such students to move on to even stronger versions of amphetamines such as crystal meth, so maybe the efforts should focus on teaching students about addiction to amphetamines and the associated risks.

Scotsman NewsMethadone a drug which is used to prevent withdrawal symptoms in individuals who were addicted to opiate drugs (and as a replacement medication in heroin addiction treatment) is going to be in high demand after nearly £2 million worth of the heroin was discovered on a raid in Scotland.  Police hope that by working with healthcare professionals they can help these drug users seek addiction treatment. Anyone who was effected by the drug raid are offered the support and care they need

Victimization and Drug Legalization

Physorg.com– A potential link has been found between victimization (and hence trauma) and the prevalence of substance use disorders. This was most evident for homosexual and bisexual men and women than it was for heterosexual men and women. Both gay men and women reported high prevalence rates of victimization some point in their lifetime with lesbian women twice as likely to report victimization experiences. Men and women who reported two or more victimization experiences were found to have higher odds of alcohol and other drug dependence.

London Evening Standard– Should drugs be legalized? That is the question that is popping up in many states across the United States.  Is marijuana safer if it is regulated by the state?  The argument for legalizing drugs goes a little something like this: Despite drugs being illegal there will always be a demand for them so if drugs are legalized then governments will be able to control drug quality before they are sold on the streets. Tax income from drug sales can then to educate individuals about drugs and to aid individuals who need addiction treatment

North West Evening Mail– Paul Brown, the director of Cumbria Alcohol and Drug Advisory Service spoke out after former drugs policy minister Bob Ainsworth and he called for the decriminalization of all banned substances. Brown informed attendees that only Portugal has decriminalized drugs and since that occurred crime rates have fallen and more individuals are willing to seek treatment for drug problems. Many substances that are legal such as alcohol and tobacco are bigger killers than drugs that are criminalized. Alcohol and tobacco kill an average 40,000 people a year this is 10 times more than any illegal drug.

Obesity, drug addiction, and dopamine

Eating junk-food can be addictive, and apparently, it causes brain changes that look eerily similar to drug addiction. That’s the message not only from the rapidly fattening waistlines of Americans everywhere, but also from the Johnson and Kenny labs at the Scripps Institute.

Food and drug addiction

The idea that obesity is caused by a compulsive pattern of eating, and that there could be a similarity between such compulsive eating and drug addiction isn’t super new. In fact, Dr. Volkow from NIDA seemed to make research into this association her goal when taking  the helm of the addiction research kingdom.

When you think about it, the notion isn’t far-fetched: Drug addicts continue to take drugs, in increasing amounts, even though they’d often like to stop (at some point) and in the face of negative consequences and the common loss of other important life functions (like family, work, etc.). Obese individuals are quite the same, eating more and more food regardless of their desire to adopt a healthier diet and in-spite of ridicule, low self-esteem, and decreased functioning that often accompanies extreme weight gain.

The research by Johnson and Kenny examined whether exposure to the kind of high-fat, super high-calorie foods that floods the junk-food market are responsible for creating food-addicts in a similar way to drugs that alter the brain in ways that make stopping more difficult.

Dopamine, reward, and junk-food

The study took three groups of rats and gave them either the regular chow diet lab animals are used to or the worse kind of birthday party food: bacon, sausage, cheesecake, pound cake, frosting and chocolate. You can imagine the party going on in the rat cages that got to eat that! Of the two groups that got to eat the crazy-fat food, one had unlimited access while the other got to binge for only one hour a day.

The bottom line: Only the rats that got unlimited access to the fat-party food developed compulsive eating habits that resulted in roughly twice the weight gain of the other two groups and the ability to continue eating even in the face of signals for punishment (a light that they were trained to associate with shocks).

When the researchers looked deeper, they found that the brains of these rats suffered a significant reduction in the density of a specific kind of dopamine receptor (D2) in a brain part known as the striatum, the same kind of reduction common in drug addicted people and obese individuals. This receptor type is often thought to be important for regulation of impulses, both physical and otherwise. It therefore makes sense that losing this type of function would cause uncontrollable eating or drug taking.

Are drug- and food-addictions the same?

While this research isn’t saying that compulsive eating, or obesity, are the same as drug addiction, it does strongly suggest that there are common mechanisms in both. More importantly, it reveals a common process that unfolds when over-exposure to the reward, in this case food, occurs. This tells us that there can likely be common pathways to these different addictive disorders, though whether any specific person ended up a food- or drug-addict because of this kind of process is still an open question. I wonder if we’ll see something like this with sex addiction soon…

Citation:

Johnson and Kenny (2010) Dopamine D2 receptors in addiction-like reward dysfunction and compulsive eating in obese rats. Nature neuroscience, 13, 635-641.

About Addiction: HIV, smoking, obesity and steroids

We have some wonderful new links about addiction for you to explore and learn through:

Clinical Trials (for anyone interested in participating):  This is the description of a study which is currently recruiting participants to test the neurocognitive effects of buprenorphine among HIV positive and HIV negative opioid-users. The researchers hypothesize that the reasoning abilities of HIV positive participants will be lower than of HIV negative participants.

Science Daily: researchers have developed a technique to visualize the activity of the brain reward circuitry in addicts and non-addicts. This exciting development might help in finding the right treatment strategy for addicts.

Health Day: Three new studies find more evidence that smoking is affected by genes. One study found three genetic regions associated with the amount of cigarettes smoked per day by a person.

UCLA Newsroom: A new study at UCLA found that more than a third of drinkers which are 60 years old and older consume excessive amounts of alcohol. This might be potentially harmful in relation to diseases they may have or medication they may be taking.

Reuters: Obesity and smoking may raise blood clot risk.

Los Angeles Times: An article from the Los Angeles Times about steroid damage. According to the article, long-term use of anabolic steroids damages the heart more than researchers believed.

How can I overcome all this sugar??? The dilemma of food addiction

I’ve been asked by several people about the impact of sugar addiction and the possible ways for overcoming it.More cake please

The dilema of food addiction

Food addiction is especially difficult to fight because unlike drug addiction, you can’t simply stop eating, regardless of your willpower. This means that a person addicted to highly sweetened foods needs to figure out a way to continue eating without indulging in their favorite foods. This is a bit like telling an alcoholic they can only drink beer but not liquer, or telling a cocaine addict they can only smoke a little bit of crack every day…

My sugar addiction story

While there is very little research that I’m aware of regarding food addiction, I can share with you my story.

I’ve always been a huge fan of sugar. I love chocolate, soda, and ice-cream, and anything else that is loaded with sugar.
The soda habit I made myself quit a few years ago when I was trying to lose some weight and had started working out. I was very determined and when I realized just how many calories are in each can of soda, I told myself that I needed to reduce how much of it I drank. At the time, I would easily have 3-4 cans per day, and while I wasn’t able to completely cut soda out, I went down to 1 or less every day pretty quickly. My trick at the time was to remind myself that all that work I just did at the gym would easily be erased by having a single can of coke (my weakness).
Still, I was eating a lot of other stuff that was pretty bad for me, mostly without even realizing it.

It was only last year, possibly because of reading the article I’d talked about in my post about sugar addiction that I started really looking at what I was eating. It didn’t hurt that my girlfriend at the time was a health nut. I’d heard about the evils of High fructose corn syrup (HFC) before, but after reading the research, I realized that the stuff is perfectly engineered to make my body crave more and more sugar.

I’d already kicked drug use years ago; I wasn’t about to let sugar control me now…

When I started reading the labels of products, I was amazed. HFC is in almost everything!!! I was discovering that the bread I was eating, some of the deli meets I was putting on it, and nearly every drink I was having included the stuff. Without ever realizing, and with the wonderful help of the food manufacturing sector, I had become essentially dependent on this stuff. There is research that indicates that the make-up of HFC, which is a bit different than that of natural sugars, may contribute to obesity and cardiovascular disease. This evidence is not conclusive as of yet, but again, there’s also research that foods loaded with sweeteners in general can cause consumption patterns very similar to addiction.

My addiction advice

Thankfully, the are products who don’t contain HFC, and I’ve been doing my best over the last year to replace my old food choices with those.
Just to be clear, I still consume more sugar that I probably should. However, I feel that by removing this highly sweetened chemical from my diet, I am essentially allowing my body to now process the more natural sugars I’m consuming. In the long run, I’m hoping that this switch will work to reduce my overall dependence on sugar.

So, my advice, given the fact that we all need to continue eating:

Don’t try to remove sugar from your diet, especially because the artifical sweeteners have themselves been shown to produce consumption patterns that are unhealthy (at least in animals for now). Instead, start becoming aware of what you are putting in your body and reducing the consumption of sugar that way.

Most natural unprocessed sugar products have lower sucrose and fructose concentrations simply because they are not as heavily processed to remove impurities. Switching at least some of your consumption to these types of sugar will reduce at least some of your sugar intake without leaving you feeling like you had to make any major changes.

Goals are good as well. If you’re eating like I used to, you put 2-3 spoons of sugar in your coffee every morning; try reducing the amount of sugar you’re adding to foods by a small percentage (like 10-15%). Such a reduction won’t massively alter the taste of your foods but will get you on your way…

Question of the day:
Would you like to share your story of overcoming, or struggling with, addiction to sugary foods?
I’m sure all the readers will benefit from hearing others’ stories.

Give me SUGAR!!!! And a little food addiction on the side…

sugarSo while we’re sitting here talking about drug addiction, quite a bit of research in the last few years has looked into food, and specifically high-sugar-content foods, as a possibly addictive substance (food addiction).

The focus started when the new head of NIDA (The National Institute on Drug Abuse), Dr. Nora Volkow, who’s been doing research on obesity, took her seat a few years back. Since then, there have been quite a few papers showing that when given foods (or water) high in sugar content, animals develop behavioral patterns that are very similar to drug addiction.

This makes sense from an evolutionary stand point, since sugar gives our bodies carbs, which supply energy for our daily activities. However, it’s probably no secret that 50,000 (or even 1000) years ago, people weren’t consuming foods with refined sugars crammed into them (refined sugars have only been around for about 250 years). Back then, people needed all the energy they could get their hands on.

Unfortunately for us, evolution doesn’t move as quickly as our industrial and technological advances, which means we now get more of the high energy foods more easily, all while moving less and therefore putting out less energy.

The result? Atkins diets and the likes recommending low carb intake, which in actuality, should probably read “sufficient carb intake.”

A very recent paper has shown that even artificial sweeteners (specifically saccharin, see citation), may be able to induce these types of behaviors. In fact, saccharin sweetened water (and also sugar sweetened water) was chosen over cocaine, even for animals that already liked cocaine, and even when they were offered more and more cocaine!!! How’s that for amazing?!

What does this mean for food addiction?

Well for one thing, it means that if we want to battle the obesity problem in this country, we need to re-examine the availability of these high-sugar, high-calorie foods. But, it may also mean that low calorie foods that are artificially sweetened may soon be shown to be as bad for us…

I’m telling you, by the end of all of this, we’ll learn that growing your own vegetables and fruits is the only way to stay healthy. Come to think of it, even then, I know at least one person who may be addicted to fruits…

Question of the day:
Does your experience with high-sugar foods lead you to agree or disagree with these research findings???

Citation:
Magalie Lenoir., Fuschia Serre., Lauriane Cantin, Serge H. Ahmed (2007). Intense Sweetness Surpasses Cocaine Reward. PLoS ONE 2(8): e698.