641731 Mon Aug 03 14:41:57 -0700 2009 9 33 Food Media and News 0 4914261 Interesting interview in Amy Goodman's Democracy Now today's issue. "Fat and sugar, fat and salt, fat, sugar, and salt stimulate us to eat more and more. Does the food industry understand the inputs? Absolutely. They understand that fat, sugar and salt stimulate us, and they understand the outputs. They understand we keep on coming back for more and more." http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/3/former_fda_commissioner_david_kessler_the Mon Aug 03 14:41:58 -0700 2009 28703 RicRios 1 4914315 What about alcohol? I think we need to keep the government out of our kitchen. Mon Aug 03 14:58:10 -0700 2009 4914261 148886 duck833 1 4914520 The only thing "interesting" about that interview is that the two people from Democracy Now seemed to have no interest in hearing what Dr. Kessler was saying. They were too busy trying to push their own opinion that the fault lies with evil food companies and their destructive marketing. Hey, it ain't ny fault that I'm fat! The corporations did it! Dr. Kessler has been doing a series of media interviews and speaking about attitudes toward food and how the brains of individuals have to be reprogrammed for there to be healthy changes in diets. For example; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/31/AR2009073102290.html Democracy Now was more concerned with pushing their own agenda of legislating something that will ultimately have to be through personal responsibility. Mon Aug 03 16:24:47 -0700 2009 4914261 32444 MakingSense 2 4914832 ? Read again: "And this is the most interesting part. When we studied—when we scanned the brains of these individuals who have evidence of these three characteristics, this conditioned hypereating, we see activation of the brain’s reward circuits, elevation—activation of the brain’s amygdala, both during the anticipation of foods—even without the foods, just them thinking about the foods or smelling the foods, there’s greater activation of those rewards circuits. And those reward circuits, when they start eating the foods, stay activated and don’t shut off. So, for the first time, we have an explanation. We can say to that woman—I mean, we can say to millions of Americans who have a hard time resisting their food in front of them, it’s not their fault. " Makes sense. Mon Aug 03 18:30:58 -0700 2009 4914520 28703 RicRios 3 4915207 I was able to comprehend the article. Dr. Kessler was referring to the use of sophisticated imaging technology to detect the brain activity in addiction. That's what he's talking about - addiction to certain foods. This was first noticed in the PET/CT studies among those addicted to certain drugs like cocaine and meth, and then researchers found that it was also present to greater and lesser degrees among those addicted to other substances or activities, and is related to OCD. The brain lights up like Las Vegas in anticipation of whatever substance/activity one is addicted to. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/UCLA-Researchers-Use-PET-Scans-4778.aspx?RelNum=4778 This tracks with the "disease" model of alcoholism and drug addiction, or other addictions which are generally treated with psychotherapy. Unfortunately, those are also treated with abstinence, which isn't possible with food, the biggest reason why eating disorders are among the most difficult to conquer. Yes, it makes perfect sense. It's part of the Overeaters Anonymous 12-Step program. Overeating is considered an addiction in that program. Mon Aug 03 21:19:31 -0700 2009 4914832 32444 MakingSense 3 4915266 But if you take the Pavlovian view of that kind of conditioning, there's no reason someone can''t develop the same pleasure responses to.... hmmmm.... zucchini instead of lemon meringue pie? A whole zucchini is about 20 to 25 calories, depending on how big it is. Fry it in a tablespoon of olive oil, dredged in a little flour so it browns and crisps, toss in a bit of garlic and seasonings, and you've got an interesting dish for about 140 calories per whole zucchini and Tbs of olive oil. ORRRR.... If you live near a Carl's JR, you can go have a serving of their zucchini for something like 370 calories! Or go ahead and have the lemon meringue pie. It's not exactly a giant leap from Carl's JR's version of zucchini, but it's a giant leap from cooking it simply and deliciously at home! The problem with food in the U.S. (and since the rest of the world, for some bizarre reason, seems to adore emulating us), is that so very very few people cook for themselves. No. I am NOT talking about Chowhounds. I'm talking about the general population. The "average" American of any age watches television and a major component of television commercials is not how to clean your swimming pool, or the advantages of disadvantages of YFB (your friendly bank). Good economy, bad economy, the most attention grabbing and Pavlovian conditioning comes from FOOD PORN in television commericals! Ever see a commercial for Jack in the Box tacos? Gorgeous! In real life, a JITB taco wins the ugly dog contest hands down. But if you buy it, you're gonna eat it! Oreo cookies: grandparent and child having a lick-the-frosting contest. Warm feelings of family, comfort, and the silent killer message is empty calories! But Oreos fly off the shelf into somebody's tummy! Is it yours? I know they zap mine from time to time. I suspect that if science could find a way to take their fancy-schmancy diagnostic and investigating machines back in time around 150 years, they would be very hard pressed to find anyone whose amygdala (or any other part of their brain), has the same response to visual or even taste stimuli as we have today. We are conditioned by television and movies and other food images from birth. And doncha know the whole wide world is just itching to turn off their televisions and get back to real life? That ain't gonna happen any time soon. The bottom line for all food manufacturers, giant and dwarf size, is exactly that: The Bottom Line. Their goal is to sell products and make a profit, and if the consumber happens to get fat, well hey, they may SELL them that bag of donuts or the 3,000 calorie burger, but come on... Everybody KNOWS they don't actually make people open their mouths and eat it. They just sell it to them. From there, the gravity of desire takes over and it's a long downhill slide. So what can be done about it? The problem is global. As old traditional cultures, such as China, "go modern" with television and commercials and knowledge of what the rest of us are eating, they are getting fat just like the rest of us. I predict that in time, this "conditioning" will separate the worker bees from the drones. Those of us who do cook and have the will power to excite our own amygdalas with an unfatty unsalty unsugary diet will be standouts in the future. There will be fewer and fewer stores that carry clothing in those sizes. Car seats, bus seats, train seats and plane seats will get wider and wider, with increasing fares to compensate for decreasing head count capacity. Soon, the majority of people will be shaped like the little girl who ate the blueberries in Willie Wonka's Chocolate Factory! So what will you have? Zucchini or lemon meringue pie? There is no simple answer! Except, maybe, getting used to the idea that grocery shopping is an adversarial venture. Well.... Then again, there's always my dream machine. I want a device shaped like a microwave oven that you set food in, press a button, and it takes out all of the calories and negative health things but doesn't change the flavor or texture. I don't want to invent it. I just want the first one free for coming up with the idea. General Electric, GET BUSY...! Mon Aug 03 22:00:55 -0700 2009 4914832 112096 Caroline1 4 4915308 Scientists don't have to go "back in time around 150 years" to compare normal reactions to whacked out ones. They can hook regular people without addictive behaviors up to the PET/CT scanners and compare them to the folks with abnormal patterns of behavior. The normal people will still register pleasure at stimuli but their brains don't light up like Christmas trees. This is why they can eat and stop when they've had a sufficient amount of fried chicken or cheesecake, or have one martini instead of getting falling-down drunk like an alcoholic who can't stop once he's started. Some of it is chemical because there are biological and chemical addictions, but a great deal of it is behavioral. Some is emotional. Dr. Kessler talks about this in many of the media interviews he's been doing. About how Americans particularly eat constantly and even mindlessly. Munch munch munch. Of course food companies have reacted to what consumers want. They "need" their fix. Something they can carry with them, like Snack Packs of cookies at 100 calories each, or Power Bars. Juice boxes for little kids. Some of it masquerades as "healthy" because it has nuts or whole grains, but it's still packed with calories and Americans are still feeding their faces non-stop. Let's face it. You can get fat if you eat enough apples and rice cakes, if you're stuffing them all day. Mon Aug 03 22:40:24 -0700 2009 4915266 32444 MakingSense 5 4915387 Well, if you want to get serious about things, it's a LOT more complicated a subject than Dr. Kessler makes it out to be. There MAY be some who are fat, simply as a matter of behavior, but more and more clinical evidence is pointing at them being in the smaller minority. The human endocrine system is a very long way from being well understood. It is currently being more and more ceded by endocrinologists that the thyroid gland secretes hormones that can bombard the brain with "I'm hungry!" messages. Hunger is a primordial and compelling sensation. We are NOT programmed to resist it. Our entire system -- physical and emotional -- is programmed to hunt and eat when our brain recieves this stimulus. It has been with us for eons. But no one in the world today understands completely how or why it works, let alone the hows and whys of individuals, or how to reduce or resist it. Is what Dr. Kessler and his cohorts see on screen an addiction, or is it a compulsion generated by an "out of tune" endocrine system that is no fault of the individual? Nobody knows. But maybe... MAYBE! some of this hypothesizing and investigating will eventually lead to some hard answers, but we ain't there yet. My thyroid was removed a bit over two years ago because of a pre-cancerous follicular mass. Two years of juggling, dosing, and overdosing with thyroid hormone has not been productive at nudging me out of the misery and weight gain of surgical hypothyroidism. I now have a brilliant research endocrinologist doing his best to help me. Here's hoping he can! Meanwhile, I am left to contemplate whether annual or semiannual biopsies might not have been the better way to go. Ah well. Everybody dies of something. But if anyone knows Benjamin Button's secret, I wouldn't mind getting younger, prettier and healthier as I go...! '-) Mon Aug 03 23:57:55 -0700 2009 4915308 112096 Caroline1 6 4916666 You're absolutely right. The Sugar Busters Diet, so popular in New Orleans, was developed by some doctors, at least one of whom was an endocrinologist. It's based on insulin reactions. That tracks heavily with what Dr. Kessler says about sugar, and what many people recognize in their own bodies if they eat too much or if their levels get low. But "sugar" is in all sorts of foods, as diabetics are aware of. American diets now are leading to an epidemic of diabetes, even among many people of seemingly normal weight. Something to it? Research with alcoholics showed that they craved sugar when they stopped drinking, and were often urged to eat candy. Alcohol metabolizes into sugars so they were used to having it and missed it. So yes, a lot of body chemistry that says, "I want...." in addition to behavior. Sweets, fats, and salt in moderation taste good, even to those of healthy weight. What to do? The problem with food as addiction is that people can't stop eating. Food is pleasurable and many have no problem. What is desirable and not harmful to one person, may be poison to another. Sure, there are some people with medical problems such as yours, but it's likely that the vast majority are messing themselves up by poor food choices. Tue Aug 04 11:46:00 -0700 2009 4915387 32444 MakingSense 7 4917566 Well, as a former occupational therapist who worked in psychiatry, I have a great deal of difficulty with "them" (as in everyone in an official position, whether administrative or clinical) identifying people as "addicted" to food. Food is one of the three basic requirements of life. Without it, you will die. Plain and simple. To say someone is "addicted" to food to me is like saying someone is addicted to breathing. So are we talking "addiction" or "compulsion" to eat the wrong food? I think it's compulsive behavior, not addictive behavior. The rub comes with what causes and/or triggers the compulsion? Historically, refined sugar is not a long standing part of the human diet. Does it have a cumulative effect on food desires? Maybe. Does sugar cause diabetes? I have trouble with that one because I think people have to have a predilection (through genetic factors) to go over the line and develop diabetes. When you study (or even pass a cursory glimpse in the direction of) diabetes, you cannot help but realize there are very strong ethnic and/or hereditary components to diabetes. For example, if you are a native American of the Mojave persuasion, you WILL be a fat baby, you WILL be a fat child, and you WILL be a fat adult, and the chances are exceedingly high that you WILL be diabetic! But it is also true that diabetes is spreading into population segments where it was heretofore rare. OBVIOUSLY the modern diet and lifestyles have a great deal to do with it. But this nation's attitude and official thinking on how to approach the problem is hogtied and hobbled from the get-go. In the article cited, Dr. Kessler and his interviewer touch on the possibility of attaching very high taxes on "unhealthy' food to discourage consumers from buying them. The idiocy of this kind of approach is that it will put those foods in an even more "desirable" position than they are now simp[ly by making them status symbols for the "I can afford that!" mentality. So it ain't gonna work. But what about taxing the hell out of the MANUFACTURER???? It still carries the inherent danger of making such foods status symbols, but it MIGHT deter the manufacturers from dashing down that road to riches in the first place. But hey, that ain't gonna fly either. Agribusiness can afford a hell of a lot more lobbyist than consumers can ever dream of! At this specific juncture in time, there is only one set of actions that will absolutely reverse the trend. 1. Ban food commercials just as we have banned tobacco commercials on television. 2. Make it illegal and prosecutable if parents are found to allow their children to watch television more than three hours per week. 3. Reintroduce recess and gym into all grade levels of public schools. 4. Promote the hell out of participatory sports for all people, children and adults alike. I guarantee this would have more positive impact on the current state of affairs than anything currently being promoted. But don't anyone hold their breath. Tue Aug 04 15:54:10 -0700 2009 4916666 112096 Caroline1