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:

Sweet Preference, Sugar Addiction and the Familial History of Alcohol Dependence: Shared Neural Pathways and Genes

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!

Caloric Restriction with Optimal Nutrition

Yesterday, we asked you “What is your opinion of caloric restriction as a health practice?” and got the above-depicted, below-described spread of responses:

• 48% said “It is a robust, scientifically proven way to live longer and healthier”
• 23% said “It may help us to live longer, but at the cost of enjoying it fully”
• 17% said “It’s a dangerous fad that makes people weak, tired, sick, and unhealthy”
• 12% said “Counting calories is irrelevant to good health; the body compensates”

So… What does the science say?

A note on terms, first

“Caloric restriction” (henceforth: CR), as a term, sees scientific use to mean anything from a 25% reduction to a 50% reduction, compared to metabolic base rate.

This can also be expressed the other way around, “dropping to 60% of the metabolic base rate” (i.e., a 40% reduction).

Here we don’t have the space to go into much depth, so our policy will be: if research papers consider it CR, then so will we.

A quick spoiler, first

The above statements about CR are all to at least some degree True in one way or another.

However, there are very important distinctions, so let’s press on…

CR is a robust, scientifically proven way to live longer and healthier: True or False?

True! This has been well-studied and well-documented. There’s more science for this than we could possibly list here, but here’s a good starting point:

❝Calorie restriction (CR), a nutritional intervention of reduced energy intake but with adequate nutrition, has been shown to extend healthspan and lifespan in rodent and primate models.

Accumulating data from observational and randomized clinical trials indicate that CR in humans results in some of the same metabolic and molecular adaptations that have been shown to improve health and retard the accumulation of molecular damage in animal models of longevity.

In particular, moderate CR in humans ameliorates multiple metabolic and hormonal factors that are implicated in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer, the leading causes of morbidity, disability and mortality❞

Source: Ageing Research Reviews | Calorie restriction in humans: an update

See also: Caloric restriction in humans reveals immunometabolic regulators of health span

We could devote a whole article (or a whole book, really) to this, but the super-short version is that it lowers the metabolic “tax” on the body and allows the body to function better for longer.

CR may help us to live longer, but at the cost of enjoying it fully: True or False?

True or False, contingently, depending on what’s important to you. And that depends on psychology as much as physiology, but it’s worth noting that there is often a selection bias in the research papers; people ill-suited to CR drop out of the studies and are not counted in the final data.

Also, relevant for a lot of our readers, most (human-based) studies recruit people over 18 and under 60. So while it is reasonable to assume the same benefits will be carried over that age, there is not nearly as much data for it.

Studies into CR and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) have been promising, and/but have caveats:

❝In non-obese adults, CR had some positive effects and no negative effects on HRQoL.❞

Source: Effect of Calorie Restriction on Mood, Quality of Life, Sleep, and Sexual Function in Healthy Non-obese Adults

❝We do not know what degree of CR is needed to achieve improvements in HRQoL, but we do know it requires an extraordinary amount of support.

Therefore, the incentive to offer this intervention to a low-risk, normal or overweight individual is lacking and likely not sustainable in practice.❞

Source: Caloric restriction improves health-related quality of life in healthy normal weight and overweight individuals

CR a dangerous fad that makes people weak, tired, sick, and unhealthy: True or False?

True if it is undertaken improperly, and/or without sufficient support. Many people will try CR and forget that the idea is to reduce metabolic load while still getting good nutrition, and focus solely on the calorie-counting.

So for example, if a person “saves” their calories for the day to have a night out in a bar where they drink their calories as alcohol, then this is going to be abysmal for their health.

That’s an extreme example, but lesser versions are seen a lot. If you save your calories for a pizza instead of a night of alcoholic drinks, then it’s not quite so woeful, but for example the nutrition-to-calorie ratio of pizza is typically not great. Multiply that by doing it as often as not, and yes, someone’s health is going to be in ruins quite soon.

Counting calories is irrelevant to good health; the body compensates: True or False?

True if by “good health” you mean weight loss—which is rarely, if ever, what we mean by “good health” here at 10almonds (unless we clarify such), but it’s a very common association and indeed, for some people it’s a health goal. You cannot sustainably and healthily lose weight by CR alone, especially if you’re not getting optimal nutrition.

Your body will notice that you are starving, and try to save you by storing as much fat as it can, amongst other measures that will similarly backfire (cortisol running high, energy running low, etc).

For short term weight loss though, yes, it’ll work. At a cost. That we don’t recommend.

❝By itself, decreasing calorie intake will have a limited short-term influence.❞

Source: Reducing Calorie Intake May Not Help You Lose Body Weight

See also…

❝Caloric restriction is a commonly recommended weight-loss method, yet it may result in short-term weight loss and subsequent weight regain, known as “weight cycling”, which has recently been shown to be associated with both poor sleep and worse cardiovascular health❞

Source: Dieting Behavior Characterized by Caloric Restriction

In summary…

Caloric restriction is a well-studied area of health science. We know:

• Practised well, it can extend not only lifespan, but also healthspan
• Practised well, it can improve mood, energy, sexual function, and the other things people fear losing
• Practised badly, it can be ruinous to the health—it is critical to practise caloric restriction with optimal nutrition.
• Practised badly, it can lead to unhealthy weight loss and weight regain

One final note…

If you’ve tried CR and hated it, and you practised it well (e.g., with optimal nutrition), then we recommend just not doing it.

You could also try intermittent fasting instead, for similar potential benefits. If that doesn’t work out either, then don’t do that either!

Sometimes, we’re just weird. It can often be because of a genetic or epigenetic quirk. There are usually workarounds, and/but not everything that’s right for most people will be right for all of us.

Take care!