High-sugar diet dampens release of dopamine, triggers over eating

https://phys.org/news/2020-06-high-...triggering.html

How nice that we are getting more and more reports of this nature.
But will it affect the outcome of our Dietary regulations?

This is an interesting slant to the sort of calorie/nutrient-flavour association Seth Roberts (Shangri-la diet etc) was interested in. He had strong flavour/calorie association increasing bodyfat setpoint--sort of simplistic. There are studies showing overweight animals or people will undereat bland foods--say two puddings, one palatable, one bland, same basic make up except for flavour. I see this as sort of valid but complex--and your drive to eat something must relate to your body's ability to sense what's in a food, somehow. Roberts has you overeating because you sense an opportunity to fatten, sort of. A poor association of flavour with calories--you could see that leading to overconsumption as well, if the appetitive mechanisms 'think' your taking in less of a nutrient than you actually are, due to a weak flavour association.

But this also ties in more closely to what Roberts was saying. On initial exposure to a food that is pleasant, there's a larger dopamine response than with repeat exposure. When the association is being formed.

Much like those who build a tolerance to drugs over time. To get the same high (dopamine response), one must increase dosage.

I think it might be more accurate to say that tolerance to drugs is like what happens with repeat exposure to food--sugar combined with flavour isn't like an addictive substance--the response to those drugs is a hacking of the system designed by God or nature to regulate food intake etc.

Without getting into the discussion about what constitutes addiction, because semantics confuse the definition, I can see similarities with the process for developing a craving for sugar and the process of developing a craving for heroin. Both result in the hacking of biological processes, and both start with the user feeling the sensation of pleasure leading to subsequent use and then potential abuse. Not saying the substances are the same. They just mirror a common process leading to continued use and then abuse.

When I was consuming sweets frequently, the dose became larger to achieve the same satisfaction. Always marveled at those who could eat one square of chocolate and make the bar last for weeks.

Probably not in a meaningful way. This study apparently only dealt with the reaction to sugar, and THEY already have added sugar tagged as a nutritionally empty substance that causes problems. So it could give them a little more ammunition against added sugar.



But the problem with sugar is so much more than just the effect added sugar has on our systems. They can cut the added sugars to absolutely nil, but there's still all the naturally occurring sugars, and all that starch that rapidly turns into sugars. As long as the dietary guidelines continue to push whole grains, potatoes, rice, legumes, and several servings of fruit daily, we're still not going to fix the problem.

This is the opposite of that hyper-palatability theory which claimed people would eat more when the food was tasty?

On my current highly Carnivore plan, meals when I'm hungry are delicious, but then when I'm full nothing appeals. Which seems like the way it should work.

I'm having the same experience with a mostly carnivorous WOE. I never experienced this phenomenon way back during my high carbing days, so the difference is very distinct as it works the way it's supposed to.

I hope not.

People need to be educated, but not regulated.

If the vegan people bribe the right people after regulation we won't be able to get meat anymore. They have a big, well financed lobby.

Bob