Fascinating NYT story on food and addiction

[BeigeTurtle]

I found this piece super interesting, particularly toward the bottom, when it discusses how our bodies are adapted to foods found in nature and not processed food-ish substances. Has anyone else read this? Thoughts?

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/craving-an-ice-cream-fix/?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes

[Kishi]

I think I can see where it's coming from and even agree with it somewhat. I mean, food companies aren't in the business of feeding you. They're in the business of making money, like all businesses are. It's to their advantage to trick your body into eating more of their food - the more you eat, the greater their profit.

Just a basic example: humans like sweet things in general. Why do we enjoy them? Because in nature, things that are sweet to us are generally safe to eat. It's an evolved safety check.

So naturally when the companies figured it out, they made everything sweeter to appeal to their customers. And it's worked.

Not to go poking around for conspiracy theories, but it just makes sense to me that they would want to make their foods as appealing as possible. If they crossed the line into addiction, well... it only helps them.

[Raincloak]

Sugar is indeed addictive. So is salt. Hell, so's oxygen. (Spend your life at sea level, and watch what happens when you visit high altitude.) If your tastebuds are used to huge amounts of sugar, the effect is not as strong, and you need more to get the same buzz. The bit about rats having "withdrawal" symptoms is interesting, but the rest of it's not news.

The addictive power of sugar has actually shaped world history quite a bit; for starters, it's what powered the African slave trade (as this guy

). It also indirectly led to America's independence from Britain; the sugar colonies in the Caribbean were so much more profitable, so much more important, that the North American colonies were ignored for most of the 17th century. Somebody wrote a whole book on the history of sugar, its title escapes me, but it discusses these things.

Pepsi often claims their product wins in blind taste tests against Coke. This may be true, because Pepsi is sweeter. One sip of Pepsi is more attractive than one sip of Coke. But for many people a whole glass of Pepsi is too sweet, and a glass of Coke is just right. (Personally I find them BOTH absurdly sweet, and can manage about 4-6 oz of Coke before I give up and pour the bottle down the drain. If I drank the stuff instead of water all the time, I probably wouldn't notice all that sugar after a while. My teeth certainly would notice, though!)

personally, I think sugar is best used as medicine, or possibly as a condiment. It should not be treated as a major everyday ingredient.