The Not-So-Sweet Science Of Sugar Addiction
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.
One Lump Mechanism Of Addiction Or Two?
In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you to what extent, if any, you believe sugar is addictive; we got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:
- About 47% said “Sugar is chemically addictive, comparable to alcohol”
- About 34% said “Sugar is chemically addictive, comparable to cocaine”
- About 11% said “Sugar is not addictive; that’s just excuse-finding hyperbole”
- About 9% said “Sugar is a behavioral addiction, comparable to video gaming”
So what does the science say?
Sugar is not addictive; that’s just excuse-finding hyperbole: True or False?
False, by broad scientific consensus. As ever, the devil’s in the details definitions, but while there is still discussion about how best to categorize the addiction, the scientific consensus as a whole is generally: sugar is addictive.
That doesn’t mean scientists* are a hive mind, and so there will be some who disagree, but most papers these days are looking into the “hows” and “whys” and “whats” of sugar addiction, not the “whether”.
*who are also, let us remember, a diverse group including chemists, neurobiologists, psychologists, social psychologists, and others, often collaborating in multidisciplinary teams, each with their own focus of research.
Here’s what the Center of Alcohol and Substance Use Studies has to say, for example:
Sugar Addiction: More Serious Than You Think
Sugar is a chemical addiction, comparable to alcohol: True or False?
True, broadly, with caveats—for this one, the crux lies in “comparable to”, because the neurology of the addiction is similar, even if many aspects of it chemically are not.
In both cases, sugar triggers the release of dopamine while also (albeit for different chemical reasons) having a “downer” effect (sugar triggers the release of opioids as well as dopamine).
Notably, the sociology and psychology of alcohol and sugar addictions are also similar (both addictions are common throughout different socioeconomic strata as a coping mechanism seeking an escape from emotional pain).
See for example in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs:
On the other hand, withdrawal symptoms from heavy long-term alcohol abuse can kill, while withdrawal symptoms from sugar are very much milder. So there’s also room to argue that they’re not comparable on those grounds.
Sugar is a chemical addiction, comparable to cocaine: True or False?
False, broadly. There are overlaps! For example, sugar drives impulsivity to seek more of the substance, and leads to changes in neurobiological brain function which alter emotional states and subsequent behaviours:
The impact of sugar consumption on stress driven, emotional and addictive behaviors
However!
Cocaine triggers a release of dopamine (as does sugar), but cocaine also acts directly on our brain’s ability to remove dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine:
The Neurobiology of Cocaine Addiction
…meaning that in terms of comparability, they (to use a metaphor now, not meaning this literally) both give you a warm feeling, but sugar does it by turning up the heating a bit whereas cocaine does it by locking the doors and burning down the house. That’s quite a difference!
Sugar is a behavioral addiction, comparable to video gaming: True or False?
True, with the caveat that this a “yes and” situation.
There are behavioral aspects of sugar addiction that can reasonably be compared to those of video gaming, e.g. compulsion loops, always the promise of more (without limiting factors such as overdosing), anxiety when the addictive element is not accessible for some reason, reduction of dopaminergic sensitivity leading to a craving for more, etc. Note that the last is mentioning a chemical but the mechanism itself is still behavioral, not chemical per se.
So, yes, it’s a behavioral addiction [and also arguably chemical in the manners we’ve described earlier in this article].
For science for this, we refer you back to:
The impact of sugar consumption on stress driven, emotional and addictive behaviors
Want more?
You might want to check out:
Beating Food Addictions: When It’s More Than “Just” Cravings
Take care!
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:
-
Do We Need Supplements, And Do They Work?
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.
Does our diet need a little help?
We asked you for your take on supplements, and got the above-illustrated, below-described set of results.
- The largest minority of respondents (a little over a third) voted for “I just take something very specific”
- The next most respondents voted for “I take so many supplements; every little helps!”
- Almost as many voted for “I just take a vitamin or two / a multivitamin”
- Fewest, about 8%, voted for “I get everything I need from my diet”
But what does the science say?
Food is less nutritious now than it used to be: True or False?
True or False depending on how you measure it.
An apple today and an apple from a hundred years ago are likely to contain the same amounts of micronutrients per apple, but a lower percentage of micronutrients per 100g of apple.
The reason for this is that apples (and many other food products; apples are just an arbitrary example) have been selectively bred (and in some cases, modified) for size, and because the soil mineral density has remained the same, the micronutrients per apple have not increased commensurate to the increase in carbohydrate weight and/or water weight. Thus, the resultant percentage will be lower, despite the quantity remaining the same.
We’re going to share some science on this, and/but would like to forewarn readers that the language of this paper is a bit biased, as it looks to “debunk” claims of nutritional values dropping while skimming over “yes, they really have dropped percentage-wise” in favor of “but look, the discrete mass values are still the same, so that’s just a mathematical illusion”.
The reality is, it’s no more a mathematical illusion than is the converse standpoint of saying the nutritional value is the same, despite the per-100g values dropping. After all, sometimes we eat an apple as-is; sometimes we buy a bag of frozen chopped fruit. That 500g bag of chopped fruit is going to contain less copper (for example) than one from decades past.
Here’s the paper, and you’ll see what we mean:
Supplements aren’t absorbed properly and thus are a waste of money: True or False?
True or False depending on the supplement (and your body, and the rest of your diet)
Many people are suffering from dietary deficiencies of vitamins and minerals, that could be easily correctable by supplementation:
However, as this study by Dr. Fang Fang Zhang shows, a lot of vitamin and mineral supplementation does not appear to have much of an effect on actual health outcomes, vis-à-vis specific diseases. She looks at:
- Cardiovascular disease
- Cancer
- Type 2 diabetes
- Osteoporosis
Her key take-aways from this study were:
- Randomised trial evidence does not support use of vitamin, mineral, and fish oil supplements to reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases
- People using supplements tend to be older, female, and have higher education, income, and healthier lifestyles than people who do not use them
- Use of supplements appreciably reduces the prevalence of inadequate intake for most nutrients but also increases the prevalence of excess intake for some nutrients
- Further research is needed to assess the long term effects of supplements on the health of the general population and in individuals with specific nutritional needs, including those from low and middle income countries
Read her damning report: Health effects of vitamin and mineral supplements
On the other hand…
This is almost entirely about blanket vitamin-and-mineral supplementation. With regard to fish oil supplementation, many commercial fish oil supplements break down in the stomach rather than the intestines, and don’t get absorbed well. Additionally, many people take them in forms that aren’t pleasant, and thus result in low adherence (i.e., they nominally take them, but in fact they just sit on the kitchen counter for a year).
One thing we can conclude from this is that it’s good to check the science for any given supplement before taking it, and know what it will and won’t help for. Our “Monday Research Review” editions of 10almonds do this a lot, although we tend to focus on herbal supplements rather than vitamins and minerals.
We can get everything we need from our diet: True or False?
Contingently True (but here be caveats)
In principle, if we eat the recommended guideline amounts of various macro- and micro-nutrients, we will indeed get all that we are generally considered to need. Obviously.
However, this may come with:
- Make sure to get enough protein… Without too much meat, and also without too much carbohydrate, such as from most plant sources of protein
- Make sure to get enough carbohydrates… But only the right kinds, and not too much, nor at the wrong time, and without eating things in the wrong order
- Make sure to get enough healthy fats… Without too much of the unhealthy fats that often exist in the same foods
- Make sure to get the right amount of vitamins and minerals… We hope you have your calculators out to get the delicate balance of calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus, and vitamin D right.
That last one’s a real pain, by the way. Too much or too little of one or another and the whole set start causing problems, and several of them interact with several others, and/or compete for resources, and/or are needed for the others to do their job.
And, that’s hard enough to balance when you’re taking supplements with the mg/µg amount written on them, never mind when you’re juggling cabbages and sardines.
On the topic of those sardines, don’t forget to carefully balance your omega-3, -6, and -9, and even within omega-3, balancing ALA, EPA, and DHA, and we hope you’re juggling those HDL and LDL levels too.
So, when it comes to getting everything we need from our diet, for most of us (who aren’t living in food deserts and/or experiencing food poverty, or having a medical condition that restricts our diet), the biggest task is not “getting enough”, it’s “getting enough of the right things without simultaneously overdoing it on the others”.
With supplements, it’s a lot easier to control what we’re putting in our bodies.
And of course, unless our diet includes things that usually can’t be bought in supermarkets, we’re not going to get the benefits of taking, as a supplement, such things as:
Etc.
So, there definitely are supplements with strong science-backed benefits, that probably can’t be found on your plate!
Share This Post
-
Menopause, & When Not To Let Your Guard Down
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.
This is Dr. Jessica Shepherd, a physician Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, CEO at Sanctum Medical & Wellness, and CMO at Hers.
She’s most well-known for her expertise in the field of the menopause. So, what does she want us to know?
Untreated menopause is more serious than most people think
Beyond the famous hot flashes, there’s also the increased osteoporosis risk, which is more well-known at least amongst the health-conscious, but oft-neglected is the increased cardiovascular disease risk:
What Menopause Does To The Heart
…and, which a lot of Dr. Shepherd’s work focuses on, it also increases dementia risk; she cites that 60–80% of dementia cases are women, and it’s also established that it progresses more quickly in women than men too, and this is associated with lower estrogen levels (not a problem for men, because testosterone does it for them) which had previously been a protective factor, but in untreated menopause, was no longer there to help:
Alzheimer’s Sex Differences May Not Be What They Appear
Treated menopause is safer than many people think
The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, conducted in the 90s and published in 2002, linked HRT to breast cancer, causing fear, but it turned out that this was quite bad science in several ways and the reporting was even worse (even the flawed data did not really support the conclusion, much less the headlines); it was since broadly refuted (and in fact, it can be a protective factor, depending on the HRT regimen), but fearmongering headlines made it to mainstream news, whereas “oopsies, never mind, we take that back” didn’t.
The short version of the current state of the science is: breast cancer risk varies depending on age, HRT type, and dosage; some kinds of HRT can increase the risk marginally in those older than 60, but absolute risk is low compared to placebo, and taking estrogen alone can reduce risk at any age in the event of not having a uterus (almost always because of having had a hysterectomy; as a quirk, it is possible to be born without, though).
It’s worth noting that even in the cases where HRT marginally increased the risk of breast cancer, it significantly decreased the risk of cancers in total, as well fractures and all-cause-mortality compared to the placebo group.
In other words, it might be worth having a 0.12% risk of breast cancer, to avoid the >30% risk of osteoporosis, which can ultimately be just as fatal (without even looking at the other things the HRT is protective against).
However! In the case of those who already have (or have had) breast cancer, increasing estrogen levels can indeed make that worse/return, and it becomes more complicated in cases where you haven’t had it, but there is a family history of it, or you otherwise know you have the gene for it.
You can read more about HRT and breast cancer risk (increases and decreases) here:
…and about the same with regard to HMT, here:
The Hormone Therapy That Reduces Breast Cancer Risk & More
Lifestyle matters, and continues to matter
Menopause often receives the following attention from people:
- Perimenopause: “Is this menopause?”
- Menopause: “Ok, choices to make about HRT or not, plus I should watch out for osteoporosis”
- Postmenopause: “Yay, that’s behind me now, back to the new normal”
The reality, Dr. Shepherd advises, is that “postmenopause” is a misnomer because if it’s not being treated, then the changes are continuing to occur in your body.
This is a simple factor of physiology; your body is always rebuilding itself, will never stop until you die, and in untreated menopause+postmenopause, it’s now doing it without much estrogen.
So, you can’t let your guard down!
Thus, she recommends: focus on maintaining muscle mass, bone health, and cardiovascular health. If you focus on those things, the rest (including your brain, which is highly dependent on cardiovascular health) will mostly take care of itself.
Because falls and fractures, particularly hip fractures, drastically reduce quality and length of life in older adults, it is vital to avoid those, and try to be sufficiently robust so that if you do go A over T, you won’t injure yourself too badly, because your bones are strong. As a bonus, the same things (especially that muscle mass we talked about) will help you avoid falling in the first place, by improving stability.
See also: Resistance Is Useful! (Especially As We Get Older)
And about falls specifically: Fall Special: Be Robust, Mobile, & Balanced!
Want to know more from Dr. Shepherd?
You might like this book of hers that we reviewed not long back:
Generation M – by Dr. Jessica Shepherd
Take care!
Share This Post
-
One Critical Mistake That Costs Seniors Their Mobility
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.
Will Harlow, the over-50s specialist physio, advises what to do instead:
Nose over toes
Often considered the most important test of mobility in later life (or in general, but later life is when it tends to decline) is the ability to get up off the floor without using your arms.
Many seniors, meanwhile, struggle to get out of a chair without using their arms.
Now, sitting in chairs in the first place is not good for the health, but that’s another matter and beyond the scope of today’s article.
If, perchance, you struggle to get up from a chair (especially if it’s low/deep, like many armchairs are) without using your hands, then here’s the way to do it:
- While practicing, cross your arms in front of you, so that you cannot use them.
- Shuffle yourself towards the front of the chair. No, don’t use your arms for this either, do a little butt-walk instead, to get you to the front edge of the chair.
- Lean forwards to position your nose over your toes (hence the mnemonic: “nose over toes”; memorize that!), as this will put your center of gravity where it needs to be.
- Now, push with your feet to rise up and forwards; slowly is better than quickly (quickly may be easier, but slowly will improve your strength and balance).
For more on all of this plus a visual demonstration, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Take care!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Does This New Machine Cure Depression?
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.
Let us first talk briefly about the slightly older tech that this may replace, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).
TMS involves electromagnetic fields to stimulate the left half of the brain and inhibit the right half of the brain. It sounds like something from the late 19th century—“cure your melancholy with the mystical power of magnetism”—but the thing is, it works:
The main barriers to its use are that the machine itself is expensive, and it has to be done in a clinic by a trained clinician. Which, if it were treating one’s heart, say, would not be so much of an issue, but when treating depression, there is a problem that depressed people are not the most likely to commit to (and follow through with) going somewhere probably out-of-town regularly to get a treatment, when merely getting out of the door was already a challenge and motivation is thin on the ground to start with.
Thus, antidepressant medications are more often the go-to for cost-effectiveness and adherence. Of course, some will work better than others for different people, and some may not work at all in the case of what is generally called “treatment-resistant depression”:
Antidepressants: Personalization Is Key!
Transcranial stimulation… At home?
Move over transcranial magnetic stimulation; it’s time for transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS).
First, what it’s not: electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Rather, it uses a very low current.
What it is: a small and portable headset (as opposed to the big machine to go sit in for TMS) that one can use at home. Here’s an example product on Amazon, though there are more stylish versions around, this is the same basic technology.
In a recent study, 45% of those who received treatment with this device experienced remission in 10 weeks, significantly beating placebo (bearing in mind that placebo effect is strongest when it comes to invisible ailments such as depression).
See also: How To Leverage Placebo Effect For Yourself ← this explains more about how the placebo effect works, to the extent that it can even be an adjuvant tool to augment “real” therapies
And as for the study, here it is:
…which rather cuts through the “depressed people don’t make it to the clinic consistently, if at all” problem. Of course, it still requires adherence to its use at home, for example three 30-minute sessions per week, but honestly, “lie/sit still” is likely within the abilities of the majority of depressed people. However…
Important note: you remember we said “in 10 weeks”? That may be critical, because shorter studies (e.g. 6 weeks) have previously returned without such glowing results:
Home-Use Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for the Treatment of a Major Depressive Episode
This means that if you get this tech for yourself or a loved one, it’ll be necessary to persist for likely 10 weeks, certainly more than 6 weeks, and not abandon it after a few sessions when it hasn’t been life-changing yet. And that may be more of a challenge for a depressed person, so likely an “accountability buddy” of some kind is in order (partner, close friend, etc) to help ensure adherence and generally bug you/them into doing it consistently.
And then, of course, you/they might still be in the 55% of people for whom it didn’t work. And that does suck, but random antidepressant medications (i.e., not personalized) don’t fare much better, statistically.
Want something else against depression meanwhile?
Here are some strategies that not only can significantly help, but also are tailored to be actually doable while depressed:
The Mental Health First-Aid You’ll Hopefully Never Need ← written by your writer who has previously suffered extensively from depression and knows what it is like
Take care!
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:
-
Five Supplements That Actually Work Vs Arthritis
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.
This is Dr. Diana Girnita, a double board-certified physician (internal medicine & rheumatology) who, in addition to her MD, also has a PhD in immunology—bearing in mind that rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune condition.
Her mission is to help people with any form of arthritis (rheumatoid or otherwise) and those with many non-arthritic autoimmune conditions (ranging from tendonitis to lupus) to live better.
Today, we’ll be looking at her recommendations of 5 supplements that actually help alleviate arthritis:
Collagen
Collagen famously supports skin, nails, bones, and joint cartilage; Dr. Girnita advises that it’s particularly beneficial for osteoarthritis.
Specifically, she recommends either collagen peptides or hydrolyzed collagen, as they are most absorbable. However, collagen can also be sourced from foods like bone broth, fish with skin and bones, and gelatin-based foods.
If you’re vegetarian/vegan, then it becomes important to simply consume the ingredients for collagen, because like most animals, we can synthesize it ourselves provided we get the necessary nutrients. For more on that, see:
We Are Such Stuff As Fish Are Made Of
Glucosamine & chondroitin
Technically two things, but almost always sold/taken together. Naturally found in joint cartilage, it can slow cartilage breakdown and reduce pain in osteoarthritis.
Studies show pain relief, especially in moderate-to-severe cases; best taken long-term. Additionally, it’s a better option than NSAIDs for patients with heart or gastrointestinal issues.
10almonds tip: something that’s tricker to find as a supplement than glucosamine and chondroitin, but you might want to check it out:
Cucumber Extract Beats Glucosamine & Chondroitin… At 1/135th Of The Dose?!
Omega-3 fatty acids
Dr. Girnita recommends this one because unlike the above recommendations that mainly help reduce/reverse the joint damage itself, omega-3 reduces inflammation, pain, and stiffness, and can decrease or eliminate the need for NSAIDs in rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.
She recommends 2-4g EPA/DHA daily; ideally taken with a meal for better absorption.
She also recommends to look for mercury-free options—algae-derived are usually better than fish-derived, but check for certification either way! See also:
What Omega-3 Fatty Acids Really Do For Us
Boswellia serrata (frankincense)
Popularly enjoyed as an incense but also available in supplement form, it contains boswellic acid, which reduces inflammation and cartilage damage.
Dr. Girnita recommends 100 mg daily, but advises that it may interact with some antidepressants, anti-anxiety medications, and NSAIDs—so speak with your pharmacist/doctor if unsure.
We also wrote about this one here:
Science-Based Alternative Pain Relief
Curcumin (turmeric)
Well-known for its potent anti-inflammatory properties, it’s comparable to NSAIDs in pain relief for most common forms of arthritis.
Dr. Girnita recommends 1–1.5g of curcumin daily, ideally combined with black pepper for better absorption:
Why Curcumin (Turmeric) Is Worth Its Weight In Gold
Lastly…
Dr. Girnita advises to not blindly trust supplements, but rather, to test them for 2–3 months while keeping a journal of your symptoms. If it improves things for you, keep it up, if not, discontinue. Humans can be complicated and not everything will work exactly the same way for everyone!
For more on dealing with chronic pain specifically, by the way, check out:
Managing Chronic Pain (Realistically!)
Take care!
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:
-
Beetroot vs Pumpkin – Which is Healthier?
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.
Our Verdict
When comparing beetroot to pumpkin, we picked the beetroot.
Why?
It was close! And an argument could be made for either.
In terms of macros, beetroot has about 3x more protein and about 3x more fiber, as well as about 2x more carbs, making it the “more food per food” option. While both have a low glycemic index, we picked the beetroot here for its better numbers overall.
In the category of vitamins, beetroot has more of vitamins B6 and B9, while pumpkin has more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B5, E, and K. So, a fair win for pumpkin this time.
When it comes to minerals, though, beetroot has more calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while pumpkin has a tiny bit more copper. An easy win for beetroot here.
In short, both are great, and although pumpkin shines in the vitamin category, beetroot wins on overall nutritional density.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
No, beetroot isn’t vegetable Viagra. But here’s what it can do
Take care!
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:
