Kaj_Sotala comments on Outside the Laboratory - Less Wrong

63 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 January 2007 03:46AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (336)
Tags: religion antitheism lawful_rationality lawful_universe

Comments (336)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 17 December 2013 03:05:09PM *  3 points [-]

I will still say no because I don't think food is addictive.

Contrary opinion:

Studies of food addiction have focused on highly palatable foods. While fast food falls squarely into that category, it has several other attributes that may increase its salience. This review examines whether the nutrients present in fast food, the characteristics of fast food consumers or the presentation and packaging of fast food may encourage substance dependence, as defined by the American Psychiatric Association. The majority of fast food meals are accompanied by a soda, which increases the sugar content 10-fold. Sugar addiction, including tolerance and withdrawal, has been demonstrated in rodents but not humans. Caffeine is a "model" substance of dependence; coffee drinks are driving the recent increase in fast food sales. Limited evidence suggests that the high fat and salt content of fast food may increase addictive potential. Fast food restaurants cluster in poorer neighborhoods and obese adults eat more fast food than those who are normal weight. Obesity is characterized by resistance to insulin, leptin and other hormonal signals that would normally control appetite and limit reward. Neuroimaging studies in obese subjects provide evidence of altered reward and tolerance. Once obese, many individuals meet criteria for psychological dependence. Stress and dieting may sensitize an individual to reward. Finally, fast food advertisements, restaurants and menus all provide environmental cues that may trigger addictive overeating. While the concept of fast food addiction remains to be proven, these findings support the role of fast food as a potentially addictive substance that is most likely to create dependence in vulnerable populations.

Also, while I don't find pizza to be at all addictive, my experience is that hamburgers are very much so. I've had experiences where I successfully avoided eating any meat for two months in a row, then succumbed to the temptation of eating a single hamburger and then ate some several times a week for the next month.

Comment author: [deleted] 17 December 2013 03:33:40PM 2 points [-]

Also, while I don't find pizza to be at all addictive, my experience is that hamburgers are very much so. I've had experiences where I successfully avoided eating any meat for two months in a row, then succumbed to the temptation of eating a single hamburger and then ate some several times a week for the next month.

Interesting. I just get such consistent meat cravings that I don't even bother trying to not eat meat. I just buy a certain amount and eat it as a basic food group.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 December 2013 04:54:40PM *  2 points [-]

Contrary opinion

Yes, I am aware that such exist :-)

It's really a definitions argument, about what one can/should apply the word "addiction" to. As such it's not very interesting, at least until it gets to connotations and consequences (e.g. if it's an addiction, the government can regulate it or make it illegal).

succumbed to the temptation

It's human to succumb to temptations. Not all temptations are addictions.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 17 December 2013 09:25:38PM 2 points [-]

Succumbing to a temptation occasionally is one thing. But even a single case of that happening leading to a month-long relapse? That's much more addiction-ish.

Comment author: Desrtopa 17 December 2013 09:41:15PM 1 point [-]

It's really a definitions argument, about what one can/should apply the word "addiction" to. As such it's not very interesting, at least until it gets to connotations and consequences (e.g. if it's an addiction, the government can regulate it or make it illegal).

The government can regulate or ban things as public health risks which are not deemed addictions though, and things which are recognized as addictive are not necessarily regulated or banned.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 December 2013 09:52:57PM *  1 point [-]

All true, but if you look at it from a different side: if you want to regulate or ban something, would you rather call it an addiction or an unfortunate exercise of the freedom choice? :-)

Comment author: Desrtopa 17 December 2013 09:58:33PM 1 point [-]

Well, the latter characterization would certainly not aid me in my attempts to get it banned, but if calling it an addiction were likely to result in semantic squabbling, I'd probably just call it a public health risk.

Comment author: hyporational 18 December 2013 05:11:06AM 1 point [-]

If you're liberal enough about what people are allowed to do, should you call anything an addiction? I'm not sure if politics connotatively hijacking scientific terminology is a good reason to change the terminology. Would you suggest something like that?

Comment author: Lumifer 18 December 2013 06:13:45AM 2 points [-]

If you're liberal enough about what people are allowed to do, should you call anything an addiction?

Sure. I would call things which change your personal biochemistry in the medium term (e.g. opiates) addictive. I think it's a reasonable use of the term.

Comment author: hyporational 18 December 2013 08:35:31AM 3 points [-]

There are opiate receptors in the brain because your brain produces transmitters that bind to those receptors. You should expect certain behaviours you engage to change your personal biochemistry in various time spans as well.

Comment author: Lumifer 18 December 2013 04:04:42PM 1 point [-]

A fair point. I should add probably the necessity of a positive feedback loop to the definition.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit