Quote:
|
Originally Posted by teaser
I like to think of it the other way around--high reward, sugary foods aren't like cocaine--cocaine and other drugs hack the reward system that developed because it gave our ancestors some survival advantage. Sugar also hacks it because modern processing makes it readily available.
|
Yep. The only thing is that sugar (and starch) are way too readily available these days. I know we've talked about this before, but there was a time when the ONLY time people had access to sugar was when fruit was in season, or they managed to brave the honey bees to raid a honey comb.
Even with the advent of agriculture, with all it's grains, and there were ways developed to preserve fruits for the off season, the grains and fruit were rationed - none of this 5 servings of fruit and a dozen servings of grain every day. It's not just that it's available, it's pushed in such huge quantities, as if your life depends on it. Then once you're in a high blood sugar/high insulin cycle, you begin to feel as if your life depends on getting your next "fix" of sugar and/or starch.
Quote:
Equating sugar with cocaine is fun, but also risks giving fuel to people who already want to burn down the low-carb bandwagon.
|
I'm not sure I understand this. If we equate the addictive qualities of sugar to the addictive and destructive qualities of cocaine, I would think that in the interest of not increasing the number of addictions and the number of addicts, it would give reason to promote LC, instead of continually pushing for more and more carb consumption, creating more and more carb addicts.
Well, except for the manufacturers (maybe that's what you were talking about?) But I think they've long since figured out that the combination of starch/sugar, salt, and/or fat is highly addictive, and once the public is addicted to that stuff, consumers will pay just about any price the manufacturer asks for it, which is why practically everything in the aisles of the grocery store are laden with those ingredients.