No, sugar doesn’t make your kids hyperactive
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s a Saturday afternoon at a kids’ birthday party. Hordes of children are swarming between the spread of birthday treats and party games. Half-eaten cupcakes, biscuits and lollies litter the floor, and the kids seem to have gained superhuman speed and bounce-off-the-wall energy. But is sugar to blame?
The belief that eating sugary foods and drinks leads to hyperactivity has steadfastly persisted for decades. And parents have curtailed their children’s intake accordingly.
Balanced nutrition is critical during childhood. As a neuroscientist who has studied the negative effects of high sugar “junk food” diets on brain function, I can confidently say excessive sugar consumption does not have benefits to the young mind. In fact, neuroimaging studies show the brains of children who eat more processed snack foods are smaller in volume, particularly in the frontal cortices, than those of children who eat a more healthful diet.
But today’s scientific evidence does not support the claim sugar makes kids hyperactive.
The hyperactivity myth
Sugar is a rapid source of fuel for the body. The myth of sugar-induced hyperactivity can be traced to a handful of studies conducted in the 1970s and early 1980s. These were focused on the Feingold Diet as a treatment for what we now call Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), a neurodivergent profile where problems with inattention and/or hyperactivity and impulsivity can negatively affect school, work or relationships.
Devised by American paediatric allergist Benjamin Feingold, the diet is extremely restrictive. Artificial colours, sweeteners (including sugar) and flavourings, salicylates including aspirin, and three preservatives (butylated hydroxyanisole, butylated hydroxytoluene, and tert-Butrylhdryquinone) are eliminated.
Salicylates occur naturally in many healthy foods, including apples, berries, tomatoes, broccoli, cucumbers, capsicums, nuts, seeds, spices and some grains. So, as well as eliminating processed foods containing artificial colours, flavours, preservatives and sweeteners, the Feingold diet eliminates many nutritious foods helpful for healthy development.
However, Feingold believed avoiding these ingredients improved focus and behaviour. He conducted some small studies, which he claimed showed a large proportion of hyperactive children responded favourably to his diet.
Flawed by design
The methods used in the studies were flawed, particularly with respect to adequate control groups (who did not restrict foods) and failed to establish a causal link between sugar consumption and hyperactive behaviour.
Subsequent studies suggested less than 2% responded to restrictions rather than Feingold’s claimed 75%. But the idea still took hold in the public consciousness and was perpetuated by anecdotal experiences.
Fast forward to the present day. The scientific landscape looks vastly different. Rigorous research conducted by experts has consistently failed to find a connection between sugar and hyperactivity. Numerous placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated sugar does not significantly impact children’s behaviour or attention span.
One landmark meta-analysis study, published almost 20 years ago, compared the effects of sugar versus a placebo on children’s behaviour across multiple studies. The results were clear: in the vast majority of studies, sugar consumption did not lead to increased hyperactivity or disruptive behaviour.
Subsequent research has reinforced these findings, providing further evidence sugar does not cause hyperactivity in children, even in those diagnosed with ADHD.
While Feingold’s original claims were overstated, a small proportion of children do experience allergies to artificial food flavourings and dyes.
Pre-school aged children may be more sensitive to food additives than older children. This is potentially due to their smaller body size, or their still-developing brain and body.
Hooked on dopamine?
Although the link between sugar and hyperactivity is murky at best, there is a proven link between the neurotransmitter dopamine and increased activity.
The brain releases dopamine when a reward is encountered – such as an unexpected sweet treat. A surge of dopamine also invigorates movement – we see this increased activity after taking psychostimulant drugs like amphetamine. The excited behaviour of children towards sugary foods may be attributed to a burst of dopamine released in expectation of a reward, although the level of dopamine release is much less than that of a psychostimulant drug.
Dopamine function is also critically linked to ADHD, which is thought to be due to diminished dopamine receptor function in the brain. Some ADHD treatments such as methylphenidate (labelled Ritalin or Concerta) and lisdexamfetamine (sold as Vyvanse) are also psychostimulants. But in the ADHD brain the increased dopamine from these drugs recalibrates brain function to aid focus and behavioural control.
Why does the myth persist?
The complex interplay between diet, behaviour and societal beliefs endures. Expecting sugar to change your child’s behaviour can influence how you interpret what you see. In a study where parents were told their child had either received a sugary drink, or a placebo drink (with a non-sugar sweetener), those parents who expected their child to be hyperactive after having sugar perceived this effect, even when they’d only had the sugar-free placebo.
The allure of a simple explanation – blaming sugar for hyperactivity – can also be appealing in a world filled with many choices and conflicting voices.
Healthy foods, healthy brains
Sugar itself may not make your child hyperactive, but it can affect your child’s mental and physical health. Rather than demonising sugar, we should encourage moderation and balanced nutrition, teaching children healthy eating habits and fostering a positive relationship with food.
In both children and adults, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends limiting free sugar consumption to less than 10% of energy intake, and a reduction to 5% for further health benefits. Free sugars include sugars added to foods during manufacturing, and naturally present sugars in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates.
Treating sugary foods as rewards can result in them becoming highly valued by children. Non-sugar rewards also have this effect, so it’s a good idea to use stickers, toys or a fun activity as incentives for positive behaviour instead.
While sugar may provide a temporary energy boost, it does not turn children into hyperactive whirlwinds.
Amy Reichelt, Senior Lecturer (Adjunct), Nutritional neuroscientist, University of Adelaide
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
Olfactory Training, Better
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Anosmia, by any other name…
The loss of the sense of smell (anosmia) is these days well-associated with COVID and Long-COVID, but also can simply come with age:
National Institute of Aging | How Smell & Taste Change With Age
…although it can also be something else entirely:
❝Another possibility is a problem with part of the nervous system responsible for smell.
Some studies have suggested that loss of smell could be an early sign of a neurodegenerative disease, such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease.
However, a recent study of 1,430 people (average age about 80) showed that 76% of people with anosmia had normal cognitive function at the study’s end.❞
Read more: Harvard Health | Is it normal to lose my sense of smell as I age?
We’d love to look at and cite the paper that they cite, but they didn’t actually provide a source. We did find some others, though:
❝Olfactory capacity declines with aging, but increasing evidence shows that smell dysfunction is one of the early signs of prodromal neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.
The loss of smell is considered a clinical sign of early-stage disease and a marker of the disease’s progression and cognitive impairment.❞
Read more: Neurons, Nose, and Neurodegenerative Diseases: Olfactory Function and Cognitive Impairment
What’s clear is the association; what’s not clear is whether one worsens the other, and what causal role each might play. However, the researchers conclude that both ways are possible, including when there is another, third, underlying potential causal factor:
❝Ongoing studies on COVID-19 anosmia could reveal new molecular aspects unexplored in olfactory impairments due to neurodegenerative diseases, shedding a light on the validity of smell test predictivity of cognitive dementia.
The neuroepithelium might become a new translational research target (Neurons, Nose, and Neurodegenerative diseases) to investigate alternative approaches for intranasal therapy and the treatment of brain disorders. ❞
~ Ibid.
Another study explored the possible mechanisms of action, and found…
❝Olfactory impairment was significantly associated with increased likelihoods of MCI, amnestic MCI, and non-amnestic MCI.
In the subsamples, anosmia was significantly associated with higher plasma total tau and NfL concentrations, smaller hippocampal and entorhinal cortex volumes, and greater WMH volume, and marginally with lower AD-signature cortical thickness.
These results suggest that cerebral neurodegenerative and microvascular lesions are common neuropathologies linking anosmia with MCI in older adults❞
- MCI = Mild Cognitive Impairment
- NfL = Neurofilament Light [Chain]
- WMH = White Matter Hyperintensity
- AD =Alzheimer’s Disease
Read more: Anosmia, mild cognitive impairment, and biomarkers of brain aging in older adults
How to act on this information
You may be wondering, “this is fascinating and maybe even a little bit frightening, but how is this Saturday’s Life Hacks?”
We wanted to set up the “why” before getting to the “how”, because with a big enough “why”, it’s much easier to find the motivation to act on the “how”.
Test yourself
Or more conveniently, you and a partner/friend/relative can test each other.
Simply do like a “blind taste testing”, but for smell. Ideally these will be a range of simple and complex odors, and commercially available smell test kits will provide these, if you don’t want to make do with random items from your kitchen.
If you’d like to use a clinical diagnostic tool, you can check out:
Clinical assessment of patients with smell and taste disorders
…and especially, this really handy diagnostic flowchart:
Algorithm of evaluation of a patient who has olfactory loss
Train yourself
“Olfactory training” has been the got-to for helping people to regain their sense of smell after losing it due to COVID.
In simple terms, this means simply trying to smell things that “should” have a distinctive odor, and gradually working up one’s repertoire of what one can smell.
You can get some great tips here:
AbScent | Useful Insights Into Smell Training
Hack your training
An extra trick was researched deeply in a recent study which found that multisensory integration helped a) initially regain the ability to smell things and b) maintain that ability later without the cross-sensory input.
What that means: you will more likely be able to smell lemon while viewing the color yellow, and most likely of all to be able to smell lemon while actually holding and looking at a slice of lemon. Having done this, you’re more likely to be able to smell (and distinguish) the odor of lemon later in a blind smell test.
In other words: with this method, you may be able to cut out many months of frustration of trying and failing to smell something, and skip straight to the “re-adding specific smells to my brain’s olfactory database” bit.
Read the study: Olfactory training: effects of multisensory integration, attention towards odors and physical activity
Or if you prefer, here’s a pop-science article based on that:
One in twenty people has no sense of smell—here’s how they might get it back
Take care!
Share This Post
What Happened to You? – by Dr. Bruce Perry and Oprah Winfrey
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
The very title “What Happened To You?” starts with an assumption that the reader has suffered trauma. This is not just a sample bias of “a person who picks up a book about healing from trauma has probably suffered trauma”, but is also a statistically safe assumption. Around 60% of adults report having suffered some kind of serious trauma.
The authors examine, as the subtitle suggests, these matters in three parts:
- Trauma
- Resilience
- Healing
Trauma can take many forms; sometimes it is a very obvious dramatic traumatic event; sometimes less so. Sometimes it can be a mountain of small things that eroded our strength leaving us broken. But what then, of resilience?
Resilience (in psychology, anyway) is not imperviousness; it is the ability to suffer and recover from things.
Healing is the tail-end part of that. When we have undergone trauma, displayed whatever amount of resilience we could at the time, and now have outgrown our coping strategies and looking to genuinely heal.
The authors present many personal stories and case studies to illustrate different kinds of trauma and resilience, and then go on to outline what we can do to grow from there.
Bottom line: if you or a loved one has suffered trauma, this book may help a lot in understanding and processing that, and finding a way forwards from it.
Click here to check out “What Happened To You?” and give yourself what you deserve.
Share This Post
We’re only using a fraction of health workers’ skills. This needs to change
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Roles of health professionals are still unfortunately often stuck in the past. That is, before the shift of education of nurses and other health professionals into universities in the 1980s. So many are still not working to their full scope of practice.
There has been some expansion of roles in recent years – including pharmacists prescribing (under limited circumstances) and administering a wider range of vaccinations.
But the recently released paper from an independent Commonwealth review on health workers’ “scope of practice” identifies the myriad of barriers preventing Australians from fully benefiting from health professionals’ skills.
These include workforce design (who does what, where and how roles interact), legislation and regulation (which often differs according to jurisdiction), and how health workers are funded and paid.
There is no simple quick fix for this type of reform. But we now have a sensible pathway to improve access to care, using all health professionals appropriately.
A new vision for general practice
I recently had a COVID booster. To do this, I logged onto my general practice’s website, answered the question about what I wanted, booked an appointment with the practice nurse that afternoon, got jabbed, was bulk-billed, sat down for a while, and then went home. Nothing remarkable at all about that.
But that interaction required a host of facilitating factors. The Victorian government regulates whether nurses can provide vaccinations, and what additional training the nurse requires. The Commonwealth government has allowed the practice to be paid by Medicare for the nurse’s work. The venture capitalist practice owner has done the sums and decided allocating a room to a practice nurse is economically rational.
The future of primary care is one involving more use of the range of health professionals, in addition to GPs.
It would be good if my general practice also had a physiotherapist, who I could see if I had back pain without seeing the GP, but there is no Medicare rebate for this. This arrangement would need both health professionals to have access to my health record. There also needs to be trust and good communication between the two when the physio might think the GP needs to be alerted to any issues.
This vision is one of integrated primary care, with health professionals working in a team. The nurse should be able to do more than vaccination and checking vital signs. Do I really need to see the GP every time I need a prescription renewed for my regular medication? This is the nub of the “scope of practice” issue.
How about pharmacists?
An integrated future is not the only future on the table. Pharmacy owners especially have argued that pharmacists should be able to practise independently of GPs, prescribing a limited range of medications and dispensing them.
This will inevitably reduce continuity of care and potentially create risks if the GP is not aware of what other medications a patient is using.
But a greater role for pharmacists has benefits for patients. It is often easier and cheaper for the patient to see a pharmacist, especially as bulk billing rates fall, and this is one of the reasons why independent pharmacist prescribing is gaining traction.
It’s often easier for a patient to see a pharmacist than a GP. PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock Every five years or so the government negotiates an agreement with the Pharmacy Guild, the organisation of pharmacy owners, about how much pharmacies will be paid for dispensing medications and other services. These agreements are called “Community Pharmacy Agreements”. Paying pharmacists independent prescribing may be part of the next agreement, the details of which are currently being negotiated.
GPs don’t like competition from this new source, even though there will be plenty of work around for GPs into the foreseeable future. So their organisations highlight the risks of these changes, reopening centuries old turf wars dressed up as concerns about safety and risk.
Who pays for all this?
Funding is at the heart of disputes about scope of practice. As with many policy debates, there is merit on both sides.
Clearly the government must increase its support for comprehensive general practice. Existing funding of fee-for-service medical benefits payments must be redesigned and supplemented by payments that allow practices to engage a range of other health professionals to create health-care teams.
This should be the principal direction of primary care reform, and the final report of the scope of practice review should make that clear. It must focus on the overall goal of better primary care, rather than simply the aspirations of individual health professionals, and working to a professional’s full scope of practice in a team, not a professional silo.
In parallel, governments – state and federal – must ensure all health professionals are used to their best of their abilities. It is a waste to have highly educated professionals not using their skills fully. New funding arrangements should facilitate better access to care from all appropriately qualified health professionals.
In the case of prescribing, it is possible to reconcile the aspirations of pharmacists and the concerns of GPs. New arrangements could be that pharmacists can only renew medications if they have agreements with the GP and there is good communication between them. This may be easier in rural and suburban areas, where the pharmacists are better known to the GPs.
The second issues paper points to the complexity of achieving scope of practice reforms. However, it also sets out a sensible path to improve access to care using all health professionals appropriately.
Stephen Duckett, Honorary Enterprise Professor, School of Population and Global Health, and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, The University of Melbourne
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
Why do I keep getting urinary tract infections? And why are chronic UTIs so hard to treat?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Dealing with chronic urinary tract infections (UTIs) means facing more than the occasional discomfort. It’s like being on a never ending battlefield against an unseen adversary, making simple daily activities a trial.
UTIs happen when bacteria sneak into the urinary system, causing pain and frequent trips to the bathroom.
Chronic UTIs take this to the next level, coming back repeatedly or never fully going away despite treatment. Chronic UTIs are typically diagnosed when a person experiences two or more infections within six months or three or more within a year.
They can happen to anyone, but some are more prone due to their body’s makeup or habits. Women are more likely to get UTIs than men, due to their shorter urethra and hormonal changes during menopause that can decrease the protective lining of the urinary tract. Sexually active people are also at greater risk, as bacteria can be transferred around the area.
Up to 60% of women will have at least one UTI in their lifetime. While effective treatments exist, about 25% of women face recurrent infections within six months. Around 20–30% of UTIs don’t respond to standard antibiotic. The challenge of chronic UTIs lies in bacteria’s ability to shield themselves against treatments.
Why are chronic UTIs so hard to treat?
Once thought of as straightforward infections cured by antibiotics, we now know chronic UTIs are complex. The cunning nature of the bacteria responsible for the condition allows them to hide in bladder walls, out of antibiotics’ reach.
The bacteria form biofilms, a kind of protective barrier that makes them nearly impervious to standard antibiotic treatments.
This ability to evade treatment has led to a troubling increase in antibiotic resistance, a global health concern that renders some of the conventional treatments ineffective.
Some antibiotics no longer work against UTIs.
Michael Ebardt/ShutterstockAntibiotics need to be advanced to keep up with evolving bacteria, in a similar way to the flu vaccine, which is updated annually to combat the latest strains of the flu virus. If we used the same flu vaccine year after year, its effectiveness would wane, just as overused antibiotics lose their power against bacteria that have adapted.
But fighting bacteria that resist antibiotics is much tougher than updating the flu vaccine. Bacteria change in ways that are harder to predict, making it more challenging to create new, effective antibiotics. It’s like a never-ending game where the bacteria are always one step ahead.
Treating chronic UTIs still relies heavily on antibiotics, but doctors are getting crafty, changing up medications or prescribing low doses over a longer time to outwit the bacteria.
Doctors are also placing a greater emphasis on thorough diagnostics to accurately identify chronic UTIs from the outset. By asking detailed questions about the duration and frequency of symptoms, health-care providers can better distinguish between isolated UTI episodes and chronic conditions.
The approach to initial treatment can significantly influence the likelihood of a UTI becoming chronic. Early, targeted therapy, based on the specific bacteria causing the infection and its antibiotic sensitivity, may reduce the risk of recurrence.
For post-menopausal women, estrogen therapy has shown promise in reducing the risk of recurrent UTIs. After menopause, the decrease in estrogen levels can lead to changes in the urinary tract that makes it more susceptible to infections. This treatment restores the balance of the vaginal and urinary tract environments, making it less likely for UTIs to occur.
Lifestyle changes, such as drinking more water and practising good hygiene like washing hands with soap after going to the toilet and the recommended front-to-back wiping for women, also play a big role.
Some swear by cranberry juice or supplements, though researchers are still figuring out how effective these remedies truly are.
What treatments might we see in the future?
Scientists are currently working on new treatments for chronic UTIs. One promising avenue is the development of vaccines aimed at preventing UTIs altogether, much like flu shots prepare our immune system to fend off the flu.
Emerging treatments could help clear chronic UTIs.
guys_who_shoot/ShutterstockAnother new method being looked at is called phage therapy. It uses special viruses called bacteriophages that go after and kill only the bad bacteria causing UTIs, while leaving the good bacteria in our body alone. This way, it doesn’t make the bacteria resistant to treatment, which is a big plus.
Researchers are also exploring the potential of probiotics. Probiotics introduce beneficial bacteria into the urinary tract to out-compete harmful pathogens. These good bacteria work by occupying space and resources in the urinary tract, making it harder for harmful pathogens to establish themselves.
Probiotics can also produce substances that inhibit the growth of harmful bacteria and enhance the body’s immune response.
Chronic UTIs represent a stubborn challenge, but with a mix of current treatments and promising research, we’re getting closer to a day when chronic UTIs are a thing of the past.
Iris Lim, Assistant Professor, Bond University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
Which gut drugs might end up in a lawsuit? Are there really links with cancer and kidney disease? Should I stop taking them?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Common medicines used to treat conditions including heartburn, reflux, indigestion and stomach ulcers may be the subject of a class action lawsuit in Australia.
Lawyers are exploring whether long-term use of these over-the-counter and prescription drugs are linked to stomach cancer or kidney disease.
The potential class action follows the settlement of a related multi-million dollar lawsuit in the United States. Last year, international pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca settled for US$425 million (A$637 million) after patients made the case that two of its drugs caused significant and potentially life-threatening side effects.
Specifically, patients claimed the company’s drugs Nexium (esomeprazole) and Prilosec (omeprazole) increased the risk of kidney damage.
Doucefleur/Shutterstock Which drugs are involved in Australia?
The class of drugs we’re talking about are “proton pump inhibitors” (sometimes called PPIs). In the case of the Australian potential class action, lawyers are investigating:
- Nexium (esomeprazole)
- Losec, Asimax (omeprazole)
- Somac (pantoprazole)
- Pariet (rabeprazole)
- Zoton (lansoprazole).
Depending on their strength and quantity, these medicines are available over-the-counter in pharmacies or by prescription.
They have been available in Australia for more than 20 years and are in the top ten medicines dispensed through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
They are used to treat conditions exacerbated by stomach acid. These include heartburn, gastric reflux and indigestion. They work by blocking the protein responsible for pumping acid into the stomach.
These drugs are also prescribed with antibiotics to treat the bacterium Helicobacter pylori, which causes stomach ulcers and stomach cancer.
This class of drugs is also used with antibiotics to treat Helicobacter pylori infections. nobeastsofierce/Shutterstock What do we know about the risks?
Appropriate use of proton pump inhibitors plays an important role in treating several serious digestive problems. Like all medicines, there are risks associated with their use depending on how much and how long they are used.
When proton pump inhibitors are used appropriately for the short-term treatment of stomach problems, they are generally well tolerated, safe and effective.
Their risks are mostly associated with long-term use (using them for more than a year) due to the negative effects from having reduced levels of stomach acid. In elderly people, these include an increased risk of gut and respiratory tract infections, nutrient deficiencies and fractures. Long-term use of these drugs in elderly people has also been associated with an increased risk of dementia.
In children, there is an increased risk of serious infection associated with using these drugs, regardless of how long they are used.
How about the cancer and kidney risk?
Currently, the Australian consumer medicine information sheets that come with the medicines, like this one for esomeprazole, do not list stomach cancer or kidney injury as a risk associated with using proton pump inhibitors.
So what does the evidence say about the risk?
Over the past few years, there have been large studies based on observing people in the general population who have used proton pump inhibitors. These studies have found people who take them are almost two times more likely to develop stomach cancer and 1.7 times more likely to develop chronic kidney disease when compared with people who are not taking them.
In particular, these studies report that users of the drugs lansoprazole and pantoprazole have about a three to four times higher risk than non-users of developing chronic kidney disease.
While these observational studies show a link between using the drugs and these outcomes, we cannot say from this evidence that one causes the other.
Researchers have not yet shown these drugs cause kidney disease. crystal light/Shutterstock What can I do if I’m worried?
Several digestive conditions, especially reflux and heartburn, may benefit from simple dietary and lifestyle changes. But the overall evidence for these is not strong and how well they work varies between individuals.
But it may help to avoid large meals within two to three hours before bed, and reduce your intake of fatty food, alcohol and coffee. Eating slowly and getting your weight down if you are overweight may also help your symptoms.
There are also medications other than proton pump inhibitors that can be used for heartburn, reflux and stomach ulcers.
These include over-the-counter antacids (such as Gaviscon and Mylanta), which work by neutralising the acidic environment of the stomach.
Alternatives for prescription drugs include nizatidine and famotidine. These work by blocking histamine receptors in the stomach, which decreases stomach acid production.
If you are concerned about your use of proton pump inhibitors it is important to speak with your doctor or pharmacist before you stop using them. That’s because when you have been using them for a while, stopping them may result in increased or “rebound” acid production.
Nial Wheate, Professor and Director – Academic Excellence, Macquarie University; Joanna Harnett, Senior Lecturer – Sydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, and Wai-Jo Jocelin Chan, Pharmacist and Associate Lecturer, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
I want to eat healthily. So why do I crave sugar, salt and carbs?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
We all want to eat healthily, especially as we reset our health goals at the start of a new year. But sometimes these plans are sabotaged by powerful cravings for sweet, salty or carb-heavy foods.
So why do you crave these foods when you’re trying to improve your diet or lose weight? And what can you do about it?
There are many reasons for craving specific foods, but let’s focus on four common ones:
1. Blood sugar crashes
Sugar is a key energy source for all animals, and its taste is one of the most basic sensory experiences. Even without specific sweet taste receptors on the tongue, a strong preference for sugar can develop, indicating a mechanism beyond taste alone.
Neurons responding to sugar are activated when sugar is delivered to the gut. This can increase appetite and make you want to consume more. Giving into cravings also drives an appetite for more sugar.
In the long term, research suggests a high-sugar diet can affect mood, digestion and inflammation in the gut.
While there’s a lot of variation between individuals, regularly eating sugary and high-carb foods can lead to rapid spikes and crashes in blood sugar levels. When your blood sugar drops, your body can respond by craving quick sources of energy, often in the form of sugar and carbs because these deliver the fastest, most easily accessible form of energy.
2. Drops in dopamine and serotonin
Certain neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, are involved in the reward and pleasure centres of the brain. Eating sugary and carb-rich foods can trigger the release of dopamine, creating a pleasurable experience and reinforcing the craving.
Serotonin, the feel-good hormone, suppresses appetite. Natural changes in serotonin can influence daily fluctuations in mood, energy levels and attention. It’s also associated with eating more carb-rich snacks in the afternoon.
Do you get 3pm sugar cravings? Serotonin could play a role.
Marcus Aurelius/PexelsLow carb diets may reduce serotonin and lower mood. However, a recent systematic review suggests little association between these diets and risk for anxiety and depression.
Compared to men, women tend to crave more carb rich foods. Feeling irritable, tired, depressed or experiencing carb cravings are part of premenstrual symptoms and could be linked to reduced serotonin levels.
3. Loss of fluids and drops in blood sugar and salt
Sometimes our bodies crave the things they’re missing, such as hydration or even salt. A low-carb diet, for example, depletes insulin levels, decreasing sodium and water retention.
Very low-carb diets, like ketogenic diets, induce “ketosis”, a metabolic state where the body switches to using fat as its primary energy source, moving away from the usual dependence on carbohydrates.
Ketosis is often associated with increased urine production, further contributing to potential fluid loss, electrolyte imbalances and salt cravings.
4. High levels of stress or emotional turmoil
Stress, boredom and emotional turmoil can lead to cravings for comfort foods. This is because stress-related hormones can impact our appetite, satiety (feeling full) and food preferences.
The stress hormone cortisol, in particular, can drive cravings for sweet comfort foods.
A 2001 study of 59 premenopausal women subjected to stress revealed that the stress led to higher calorie consumption.
A more recent study found chronic stress, when paired with high-calorie diet, increases food intake and a preference for sweet foods. This shows the importance of a healthy diet during stress to prevent weight gain.
What can you do about cravings?
Here are four tips to curb cravings:
1) don’t cut out whole food groups. Aim for a well-balanced diet and make sure you include:
- sufficient protein in your meals to help you feel full and reduce the urge to snack on sugary and carb-rich foods. Older adults should aim for 20–40g protein per meal with a particular focus on breakfast and lunch and an overall daily protein intake of at least 0.8g per kg of body weight for muscle health
- fibre-rich foods, such as vegetables and whole grains. These make you feel full and stabilise your blood sugar levels. Examples include broccoli, quinoa, brown rice, oats, beans, lentils and bran cereals. Substitute refined carbs high in sugar like processed snack bars, soft drink or baked goods for more complex ones like whole grain bread or wholewheat muffins, or nut and seed bars or energy bites made with chia seeds and oats
2) manage your stress levels. Practise stress-reduction techniques like meditation, deep breathing, or yoga to manage emotional triggers for cravings. Practising mindful eating, by eating slowly and tuning into bodily sensations, can also reduce daily calorie intake and curb cravings and stress-driven eating
3) get enough sleep. Aim for seven to eight hours of quality sleep per night, with a minimum of seven hours. Lack of sleep can disrupt hormones that regulate hunger and cravings
4) control your portions. If you decide to indulge in a treat, control your portion size to avoid overindulging.
Overcoming cravings for sugar, salt and carbs when trying to eat healthily or lose weight is undoubtedly a formidable challenge. Remember, it’s a journey, and setbacks may occur. Be patient with yourself – your success is not defined by occasional cravings but by your ability to manage and overcome them.
Hayley O’Neill, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
