"This is Your Brain on Food" Scientific American Article - LINK

This is just the first couple of paragraphs. Full article at link below...

http://tinyurl.com/35euq8

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...95C8EC41668EC8

September Issue, 2007 "Scientific American"

OBESITY AND ADDICTION
This is Your Brain on Food (extended version)

Neuroimaging reveals a shared basis for chocoholia and drug addiction
By Kristin Leutwyler Ozelli


Nora D. Volkow is director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse.
Before her appointment in 2003, she held various positions at Brookhaven
National Laboratory and also served as professor of psychiatry and
associate dean for the medical school at Stony Brook University. In her
research, she was first to use imaging technology to investigate
neurochemical changes associated with addiction

Mounting evidence shows that compulsive eating and drug abuse engage
some of the same brain circuits in similar ways, offering a new angle
for understanding and treating obesity. In an interview with Scientific
American, Nora D. Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug
Abuse and a pioneer in the study of addiction, explains.

How do foods and drugs affect the brain in the same way?
The system in the brain that both drugs and food activate is basically
the circuitry that evolved to reward behaviors that are essential for
our survival. One of the reasons why humans are attracted to food is
because of its rewarding, pleasurable properties. When we experience
pleasure, our brains learn to associate the pleasurable experience with
the cues and conditions that predict it. In other words, the brain
remembers not just what the food tasted like but also the sensation of
pleasure itself, and the cues or behaviors that preceded it. That memory
becomes stronger and stronger as the cycle of predicting, seeking and
obtaining pleasure becomes more reliable. When you remember that food,
you also automatically expect the pleasure that comes from it. So when
you like something very much, the mere fact of being re-exposed to it,
even if it is out of reach, will trigger the desire to get it. In
scientific terms, we call this process conditioning.

Conditioned cues or memories are very powerful and can profoundly affect
our behavior. And when conditioning occurs to a positive stimulus, such
as food, you are much more likely to repeat a particular action to
obtain it. Drugs are particularly effective as conditioning stimuli,
primarily by virtue of their chemical properties. They can directly
stimulate areas of the brain involved with pleasure in a way that is
more efficient than natural reinforcers, such as food or sex. You get an
exaggerated response (supraphysiological) partly because the drug can
get to the brain very fast, in a matter of seconds. With natural
reinforcers the process of activating the reward pathway is more
prolonged. Importantly, the conditioning that takes place links the
behavior not just to the stimulus itself but to the environment and
other cues that might have been only peripherally associated with it.

That’s exactly what nature intended: if the behavior necessary to seek a
pleasurable experience was triggered exclusively by the object, the
conditioned response would be very ineffective indeed; think about the
need to find food to survive, for example: say we are primitive
creatures in the jungle and you by pure chance taste a banana. The
banana tastes good, but if you were just conditioned to remember that it
tasted good—and not to the smell, the shape, the color, or the location
of the banana—your ability to find it again would be impaired. Once you
create this conditioned memory, though, it’s just like Pavlov’s dogs;
the response becomes a reflex. This conditioned response underlies both
the drive in drug addiction and the drive in compulsive eating.

What’s going on in the brain during cravings?

[see link for full text]

Cubit wrote:
If the some of the exotic additives in processed foods are latent addictive
drugs, the finding of the study might make sense.


The study might make sense in spite of any exotic additives.

Did you read very much about it at all?

If the some of the exotic additives in processed foods are latent addictive
drugs, the finding of the study might make sense.


"Jim" wrote in message
...
This is just the first couple of paragraphs. Full article at link below...

http://tinyurl.com/35euq8

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...95C8EC41668EC8

September Issue, 2007 "Scientific American"

OBESITY AND ADDICTION
This is Your Brain on Food (extended version)

Neuroimaging reveals a shared basis for chocoholia and drug addiction
By Kristin Leutwyler Ozelli


Nora D. Volkow is director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse.
Before her appointment in 2003, she held various positions at Brookhaven
National Laboratory and also served as professor of psychiatry and
associate dean for the medical school at Stony Brook University. In her
research, she was first to use imaging technology to investigate
neurochemical changes associated with addiction

Mounting evidence shows that compulsive eating and drug abuse engage some
of the same brain circuits in similar ways, offering a new angle for
understanding and treating obesity. In an interview with Scientific
American, Nora D. Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse
and a pioneer in the study of addiction, explains.

How do foods and drugs affect the brain in the same way?
The system in the brain that both drugs and food activate is basically the
circuitry that evolved to reward behaviors that are essential for our
survival. One of the reasons why humans are attracted to food is because
of its rewarding, pleasurable properties. When we experience pleasure, our
brains learn to associate the pleasurable experience with the cues and
conditions that predict it. In other words, the brain remembers not just
what the food tasted like but also the sensation of pleasure itself, and
the cues or behaviors that preceded it. That memory becomes stronger and
stronger as the cycle of predicting, seeking and obtaining pleasure
becomes more reliable. When you remember that food, you also automatically
expect the pleasure that comes from it. So when you like something very
much, the mere fact of being re-exposed to it, even if it is out of reach,
will trigger the desire to get it. In scientific terms, we call this
process conditioning.

Conditioned cues or memories are very powerful and can profoundly affect
our behavior. And when conditioning occurs to a positive stimulus, such as
food, you are much more likely to repeat a particular action to obtain it.
Drugs are particularly effective as conditioning stimuli, primarily by
virtue of their chemical properties. They can directly stimulate areas of
the brain involved with pleasure in a way that is more efficient than
natural reinforcers, such as food or sex. You get an exaggerated response
(supraphysiological) partly because the drug can get to the brain very
fast, in a matter of seconds. With natural reinforcers the process of
activating the reward pathway is more prolonged. Importantly, the
conditioning that takes place links the behavior not just to the stimulus
itself but to the environment and other cues that might have been only
peripherally associated with it.

That’s exactly what nature intended: if the behavior necessary to seek a
pleasurable experience was triggered exclusively by the object, the
conditioned response would be very ineffective indeed; think about the
need to find food to survive, for example: say we are primitive creatures
in the jungle and you by pure chance taste a banana. The banana tastes
good, but if you were just conditioned to remember that it tasted good—and
not to the smell, the shape, the color, or the location of the banana—your
ability to find it again would be impaired. Once you create this
conditioned memory, though, it’s just like Pavlov’s dogs; the response
becomes a reflex. This conditioned response underlies both the drive in
drug addiction and the drive in compulsive eating.

What’s going on in the brain during cravings?

[see link for full text]

Jim wrote:
:: This is just the first couple of paragraphs. Full article at link
:: below...
::
:: http://tinyurl.com/35euq8
::
::
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...95C8EC41668EC8
::
:: September Issue, 2007 "Scientific American"
::


BTW, this is a special issue on diet, health, and the food supply. The cover
lists these topics:

The Threat of Tainted Foods
Feast and Famine: The Global Paradox of Obesity and Malnutrition
Not Just Calories: Complex Causes of Weight Gain
Gene Tech: Can it Help End World Hunger?
Chocoholic: Neuroscience of Food Addicitions
Pounds of Cu Healthier to Be Overweight?

From the TOC, it looks as though there ought to be several good reads for
some of us here.

Roger Zoul wrote:
Jim wrote:
:: This is just the first couple of paragraphs. Full article at link
:: below...
::
:: http://tinyurl.com/35euq8
::
::
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...95C8EC41668EC8
::
:: September Issue, 2007 "Scientific American"
::


BTW, this is a special issue on diet, health, and the food supply. The cover
lists these topics:

The Threat of Tainted Foods
Feast and Famine: The Global Paradox of Obesity and Malnutrition
Not Just Calories: Complex Causes of Weight Gain
Gene Tech: Can it Help End World Hunger?
Chocoholic: Neuroscience of Food Addicitions
Pounds of Cu Healthier to Be Overweight?

From the TOC, it looks as though there ought to be several good reads for
some of us here.




Yes, there are a number of good articles, and some that appeared to
disappoint me as not being quite up to the standards of "Scientific
American".


---------------------------------------------------------------------

As a result of this magazine issue, I picked up the book "What To Eat"
by Marion Nestle, one of this issue's magazine articles "Eating Made
Simple" - a nutrition discussion.

Her book immediately launches into a discussion of topics like:

"Why is nutrition so confusing?"

"Why don't you nutritionists figure out what is right and make it simple
for the rest of us to understand?"

"Why is it so hard to know which foods are good for me?"

"Why can't you help me know what to eat?"

The book is a heavy read. Partly, it is because to understand modern
food, you need to understand the modern food industry.


Here is one of my favorite quotes:

"History demonstrates that, at best, the USDA acts grudgingly in the
public interest if there is any chance that doing so might cause
problems for the meat industry"

Cubit wrote:
:: If the some of the exotic additives in processed foods are latent
:: addictive drugs, the finding of the study might make sense.
::

What about this:

"A patient who observes realtime images of his or her brain activity may be
able to alter how
neural circuitry functions and gain a measure of control over food and drug
cravings."

This could be interesting. If I could just figure out how to get real-time
brain-activity images, I might be cured of my obsessions! Need to get my
own MRI machine in here!

What about this:

"In obesity, some people may be at a greater risk for compulsive eating
because they may be overly sensitive to the rewards of food."

Hmm....seems plausible to me.

What about this:

"A distinct obstacle to recovery for compulsive eaters is the obvious fact
that you have to eat to survive, whereas if you are addicted to an illegal
substance, you are in a way protected because the drug is not going to be
environmentally available everywhere."

I think she stole that notion from someone in this ng, as I've heard it time
and time again here.

"Jim" wrote

Yes, there are a number of good articles, and some that appeared to
disappoint me as not being quite up to the standards of "Scientific
American".

Or as "National Lampoon" (the magazine) once called it "Scienterrific
American". In a bid to increase their reader base SciAm dusted off and
resumed the "popular science" hat that it wore at its inception in 1845.
That was three decades or so ago. It sounds as if they haven't entirely
recanted.

SciAm is not and does not profess to be a "peer-reviewed scientific
journal". Though they were not exactly trumpeting this from the rooftops
last I looked.

On the third hand, NatLamp isn't around any more but SciAm is and surely
that must count for something.
--
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com