Why you can get addicted to food in the same way as you can to cigarettes or drugs
Nicotine, drugs, gambling, sex – even smartphones: these are the things most of us would associate with the problem of addiction. But what about food?
It's a dividing question, with some scientists arguing there is nothing in our diet with the same physiologically addictive properties as those found in, for example, drugs or alcohol.
But others say the rise in consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is making more of us dependent on the 'high' we get from eating the combination of sugar, fat and additives in them.
UPFs encompass everything from mass-produced chips and breakfast cereals to sliced bread and ready meals, and are broadly defined as foods made with multiple ingredients including additives to enhance flavour, colour and shelf-life. UPFs are increasingly linked with health problems.
Now there is worrying new evidence that food addiction may be fuelling an epidemic of type 2 diabetes in the UK.
More than four million people in the UK have type 2 diabetes – up from less than three million in 2018. It's a condition where the body cannot produce enough insulin or stops responding to it properly. Insulin is a hormone that helps cells process sugar from the blood for energy.
When someone has diabetes, sugar builds up in the blood, gradually affecting circulation and increasing the risk of heart disease, stroke, blindness and even limb amputation because of a lack of oxygen-rich blood reaching vital parts of the body. But while it's well-established that over-eating (and the obesity it can cause) is the main culprit, a new study identified the proportion of people with type 2 diabetes who meet the criteria for being food 'addicts' – with little or no self-control over their eating habits.
Researchers at the Federal University of Sao Paulo in Brazil analysed previous studies on type 2 diabetes – involving almost 16,000 people – to see what proportion ticked all of the boxes for food addiction.
To do this, they used the Yale Food Addiction Scale, a scoring system compiled in 2009 by scientists at Yale University in the US. It records, for instance, whether people are unable to control how much they eat, suffer withdrawal symptoms when favourite treats are not available or have repeatedly tried – and failed – to stop gorging on them.
The results, published in the British Journal of Nutrition, suggested that almost a third of those with type 2 diabetes have a food addiction – and they were two-and-a-half times more likely to have it than healthy people. But what happens in the brain that leads to a food addiction?
Studies show that foods, such as UPFs high in fat and sugar, act on the brain's reward mechanism, triggering the release of dopamine – a 'feelgood' chemical produced when we do something we enjoy.
The theory is that it's this neurological response – the same seen from drinking alcohol or placing a bet – that drives food addiction. And over-eating these foods then causes diabetes.
Warning signs of a food addiction include going to 'extreme lengths' to obtain junk food when it's not easily available, eating so excessively that you neglect work, friends and family, and being dishonest with others about your eating patterns, according to the Priory Group of private clinics, which offers food addiction treatment.
However, a major 2024 study by the National Institutes of Health in Maryland, US, cast doubt on the impact of the dopamine response in food addiction. Researchers gave 50 young, healthy volunteers an ultra-processed milkshake that was high in fat and sugar and then performed brain scans to measure dopamine levels 30 minutes later.
To their surprise, the results – published in the online journal medRxiv – revealed little or no change in dopamine levels, undermining the idea that people can easily get hooked on UPFs as with narcotics, nicotine or alcohol.
Dr Eleanor Bryant, an associate professor of health and eating behaviour at Bradford University, told Good Health that although certain foods may act on the dopamine system in the brain, the effect is likely to be too small to lead to any genuine form of dependence – or indeed addiction.
Instead, she says, if food addiction is real, it's more likely a behavioural response to stress, anxiety and poor self-esteem – rather than a neurological response to the ingredients within food.
'You can get addicted to eating but I don't think you can get addicted to food,' she says.
'It's a coping mechanism because, for many people, eating any food brings comfort and familiarity. And it's not as if you can give it up, like drugs or alcohol, so it makes it difficult to deal with.'
Wasim Hanif, a professor of diabetes and endocrinology at University Hospital Birmingham, said it's well known that some people with type 2 diabetes have problems regulating their appetite.
But he says it is 'inappropriate to label this as food addiction as it puts the blame on the patient'.
He adds: 'Not everyone who becomes obese from over-eating develops diabetes – there's a strong genetic element as well.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
24-05-2025
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Inside Violet Affleck's argument with Jennifer Garner... and why she used her family in Yale essay without permission
Violet Affleck has never shied away from standing up for what she believes in, and it seems her famous parents have no plans to get in the way of their activist daughter. The 19-year-old college student, who just completed her freshman year at Yale University, recently raised eyebrows with an academic essay titled, 'A Chronically Ill Earth: COVID Organizing as a Model Climate Response in Los Angeles.'
NBC News
29-04-2025
- NBC News
Life expectancy for women in some Southern states has barely budged in more than 100 years
How long you live depends on where you live, new research suggests. Americans' life expectancy increased throughout the 20th century, although in some states, particularly in the South, people aren't living much longer than they were 100 years ago. It's worse among women. Researchers at the Yale School of Public Health analyzed the death data of 77 million women and 102 million men born from 1900 through 2000. The findings, published Monday in the journal JAMA Network Open, showed that nationwide life expectancy for women increased from 73.8 to 84.1 in that time frame, while it jumped from 62.8 to 80.3 for men. Scientists and health officials calculate life expectancy at birth as a way of understanding a country's health over time. How long people in the United States lived since the last century varied drastically by state. 'What was surprising to me was that for some states, especially for women, there's basically no change,' said study co-author Theodore Holford, a senior research scientist in biostatistics at Yale University. 'Over 100 years, in some of these Southern states, they improved less than two years in the framework of all of the medical advances that we have seen during the 20th century.' The bottom five states for life expectancy among women born in 2000, compared to women born in 1900, are: West Virginia, 75.3, up from 74.3. Oklahoma, 76, down from 76.7. Kentucky, 76.5, up from 74.9. Mississippi, 76.6, up from 73.2. Arkansas, 76.6, up from 75.7. Southern men born in 2000 also tended to have lower life expectancies, though they showed greater improvements than women since 1900: Mississippi, 71.8, up from 62.3. West Virginia, 72.6, up from 63.7. Alabama, 72.6, up from 62.5. Louisiana, 72.9, up from 61.5. Tennessee 73.4, up from 63.6. Not all Southern states show lower or stalled life expectancies for people born in 2000. Florida, Texas and Virginia are among the Southern states featured in the top 20 of life expectancy for both men and women born in 2000. States outside the South that ranked in the bottom 10 for both sexes include Ohio and Indiana. The study also highlights life expectancy by state and sex at the midway point of 1950. Men in particular showed greater improvement during the first half of the century. In North Dakota, for example, male life expectancy jumped 10 years from 66.4 in 1900 to 76.5 in 1950, but only one year, 77.8, from 1950 to 2000. Data reflects the state in which a person died, not where they were born. It's well-established that women live longer than men, but this latest research unveils geographic disparities in life expectancy at a turning point in federal public health administration. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lamented the state of the nation's health care system in an April 10 statement that was also published in the New York Post. 'Our country's health is declining. America has the highest rates of chronic disease in the world,' Kennedy said. 'We rank last in terms of health among developed nations. And life expectancy is declining for many groups of Americans.' Why is life expectancy lower in the South? The Yale study claims to be the first to analyze historic state mortality trends by birth cohort, meaning entire generations are tracked. Population health research more commonly involves a metric called period life expectancy, which estimates influences on mortality over a select year, such as during a pandemic. 'The idea here is to try to pick up on generational factors,' Holford said. 'There are lots of factors related to health that are more closely tied to generations than a calendar year.' Cindy Prins, an associate professor in the department of population health sciences at the University of Central Florida College of Medicine, who wasn't involved in the study, said, 'This is a unique and important approach to examining life expectancies.' That doesn't make the data any less alarming. 'It's concerning to know that cohort life expectancies in many Southern states, which have the lowest overall life expectancies, haven't changed much over time,' Prins said. Overall, Americans are living longer, thanks to improvements in health care, sanitation, tobacco control, and the prevention of cancer, heart disease and other diseases, the study said. Previous research indicates that states with progressive public health policies are more likely to have higher life expectancies. Socioeconomic differences among states also impact longevity. Dr. Marc Gourevitch, a professor in the department of population health at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine, said research shows that states with policies that support a more livable minimum wage and paid sick leave, as well as access to affordable medical care, are more likely to show significant life expectancy gains over time. 'Focusing on policies that help people better meet their everyday needs promises to go a long way in improving life expectancy and, with it, giving more people a chance at getting to watch their grandchildren grow,' said Gourevitch, who wasn't involved in the Yale study. Women born in 2000 in the District of Columbia have both the highest life expectancy, 93 years, and the biggest improvement since 1900, when life expectancy was 63.9. Similarly, D.C. men born in 2000 have the third-highest life expectancy of 86.5 years, up from 48.7 at the start of the century. 'Urban areas tend to do a lot better than rural areas, presumably because of differences in access to health care,' Holford said of people living longer in the nation's capital. Another change is the mix of the population in the District of Columbia. 'Many more people moving into the area who would have a lot of the monetary advantages that would give them better access to things affecting their health,' Holford said. Which states have the highest life expectancy? States with the longest life expectancies for women born in 2000 spanned both coasts and beyond the continental U.S.: In New York, 91.9, up from 71.2. California, 91.3, up from 73.6. Massachusetts, 88.8, up from 74.2 Hawaii, 88.7, up from 75.6 . Other than D.C., these states show the longest life expectancy among men born in 2000: New York, 87.8, up from 60.1. California, 86.8, up from 62.7. Massachusetts, 84.8, up from 63.4. Washington, 84.3, up from 63.7. Holford said the Yale study is part of his work with the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET). A goal of this and other CISNET research is to help health departments address state-specific disparities. One downside to implementing promising public health policies, Holford said, is that it can take years — even generations — to measure their effects.
Daily Mail
21-04-2025
- Daily Mail
Why you can get addicted to food in the same way as you can to cigarettes or drugs
Nicotine, drugs, gambling, sex – even smartphones: these are the things most of us would associate with the problem of addiction. But what about food? It's a dividing question, with some scientists arguing there is nothing in our diet with the same physiologically addictive properties as those found in, for example, drugs or alcohol. But others say the rise in consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is making more of us dependent on the 'high' we get from eating the combination of sugar, fat and additives in them. UPFs encompass everything from mass-produced chips and breakfast cereals to sliced bread and ready meals, and are broadly defined as foods made with multiple ingredients including additives to enhance flavour, colour and shelf-life. UPFs are increasingly linked with health problems. Now there is worrying new evidence that food addiction may be fuelling an epidemic of type 2 diabetes in the UK. More than four million people in the UK have type 2 diabetes – up from less than three million in 2018. It's a condition where the body cannot produce enough insulin or stops responding to it properly. Insulin is a hormone that helps cells process sugar from the blood for energy. When someone has diabetes, sugar builds up in the blood, gradually affecting circulation and increasing the risk of heart disease, stroke, blindness and even limb amputation because of a lack of oxygen-rich blood reaching vital parts of the body. But while it's well-established that over-eating (and the obesity it can cause) is the main culprit, a new study identified the proportion of people with type 2 diabetes who meet the criteria for being food 'addicts' – with little or no self-control over their eating habits. Researchers at the Federal University of Sao Paulo in Brazil analysed previous studies on type 2 diabetes – involving almost 16,000 people – to see what proportion ticked all of the boxes for food addiction. To do this, they used the Yale Food Addiction Scale, a scoring system compiled in 2009 by scientists at Yale University in the US. It records, for instance, whether people are unable to control how much they eat, suffer withdrawal symptoms when favourite treats are not available or have repeatedly tried – and failed – to stop gorging on them. The results, published in the British Journal of Nutrition, suggested that almost a third of those with type 2 diabetes have a food addiction – and they were two-and-a-half times more likely to have it than healthy people. But what happens in the brain that leads to a food addiction? Studies show that foods, such as UPFs high in fat and sugar, act on the brain's reward mechanism, triggering the release of dopamine – a 'feelgood' chemical produced when we do something we enjoy. The theory is that it's this neurological response – the same seen from drinking alcohol or placing a bet – that drives food addiction. And over-eating these foods then causes diabetes. Warning signs of a food addiction include going to 'extreme lengths' to obtain junk food when it's not easily available, eating so excessively that you neglect work, friends and family, and being dishonest with others about your eating patterns, according to the Priory Group of private clinics, which offers food addiction treatment. However, a major 2024 study by the National Institutes of Health in Maryland, US, cast doubt on the impact of the dopamine response in food addiction. Researchers gave 50 young, healthy volunteers an ultra-processed milkshake that was high in fat and sugar and then performed brain scans to measure dopamine levels 30 minutes later. To their surprise, the results – published in the online journal medRxiv – revealed little or no change in dopamine levels, undermining the idea that people can easily get hooked on UPFs as with narcotics, nicotine or alcohol. Dr Eleanor Bryant, an associate professor of health and eating behaviour at Bradford University, told Good Health that although certain foods may act on the dopamine system in the brain, the effect is likely to be too small to lead to any genuine form of dependence – or indeed addiction. Instead, she says, if food addiction is real, it's more likely a behavioural response to stress, anxiety and poor self-esteem – rather than a neurological response to the ingredients within food. 'You can get addicted to eating but I don't think you can get addicted to food,' she says. 'It's a coping mechanism because, for many people, eating any food brings comfort and familiarity. And it's not as if you can give it up, like drugs or alcohol, so it makes it difficult to deal with.' Wasim Hanif, a professor of diabetes and endocrinology at University Hospital Birmingham, said it's well known that some people with type 2 diabetes have problems regulating their appetite. But he says it is 'inappropriate to label this as food addiction as it puts the blame on the patient'. He adds: 'Not everyone who becomes obese from over-eating develops diabetes – there's a strong genetic element as well.'
