Food Addiction

[donnao]

food addiction--- in particular to sugar and processed carbs

is it real, or is it pseudo science ?

what are the opinions of the people on this board.. ?

thanks !
Donna O

[Kathleen]

We are all addicted to food.
Kathleen

[paulawylma]

IMHO, since you asked, the word "addiction" is overused in our sorciety. An addiction isn't just a craving or a feeling that you have to have something;it's the result of a chemical feedback process in our brains. If you have an addiction then there will be physical symptoms if you don't get your fix (headache, nausea, etc--not hunger) which are relieved when you get your fix and you need more each time to satisfy your fix. I'm not ruling out the possiblity of an addiciton to a particular foodstuff if it contains addictive chemicals, like caffeine, for example, but for the most part food isn't an addiction--certainly not food in general. I might believe an actual addiction to something like sugar though--after all, it is a white, crystalline powder.

In our society, it has become easy to make excuses and play the victim instead of taking responsiblity for our behavior and yes, our habits. On the other hand, the fact that I can't stay off caffeine (after "kicking it" several times) has led me to me more understanding of people with much harder addictions like tobacco and hard drugs. I mean if I can't stay off coffee, then how can I criticize people who smoke or do hard drugs?

[wosnes]

The short answer is no. I think that the work is misused and overused

Processed foods don't give us the satisfaction we need from what we eat either in terms of nutrients or emotional satisfaction.

Here's something I posted about hunger some time ago. And here's a quote from Real Food Has Curves:

...in all honesty we're not satisfied -- although we can eat whenever we want: rip open a bag of this or a box of that, cook a meal by assembling it from premade parts, eat it hot, eat it later, take it out, call it in, sit down and be served, put it in a doggy bag and have it right at hand anytime, day or night.

We can do all this and remain unsatisfied because the food's not real. It's processed, packaged, ridiculously sweet, unbelievably salty, mass-produced in such plummeting quality that it's had to be shellacked with fat and artificial junk just to make it palatable -- not to mention pumped with preservatives and emulsifiers to keep it on the shelf until the next Ice Age, all white fooling us into believing it's almost fresh...

...These fake out flavors, fats, and additives give us little satisfaction. But boy, do we keep trying! As our friend Leslie Fink, the head nutritionist for weightwatchers.com puts it, "When you're hungry and/or craving, if nothing satisfies you, you tend to keep eating until you get what you need -- and that might be way past satiety."

As the authors say, "the road to hell is paved with....fake food."

Or, as I like to put it, re-interpreting a line from an old Imperial Margarine commercial: "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!" Actually, in terms of both physical and emotional satisfaction, you really can't fool Mother Nature.

Or, to quote The Rolling Stones:

I can't get no satisfaction
I can't get no satisfaction
'Cause I try and I try and I try and I try
I can't get no, I can't get no

Too bad they didn't do a verse about food, but it wasn't so bad when that song was written!

[BrightAngel]

Personally, I don't care for the term "Food Addiction",
but my own experience, my observation of others, and my intellectual research
does bring me to the conclusion that many people have certain general "food sensitivities",
which differ in intensity between specific individuals.

Here are some comments I recently made on another Thread that I think are relevant to this subject.

A book that should not be missed is:Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes,
which contains exceptional research on the History of Obesity/Dieting.
He is a journalist specializing in scientific controversy,
with two impressive prior publications, one of which is on physics.
My recollection is that he has a physics degree from Harvard,
an engineering degree from Stanford, and a journalism degree from Columbia.

Although the "mainline" has not accepted his ultimate conclusions,
all factions appear to be quite impressed by his superb synopsis
of his 7 years of researching the past 150 years of obesity/dieting Research.
Some find it a bit of a "hard read". It ends with a Bibliography of about 100 pages.

However in his University Lectures, he hits the book's main points.
This Dartmouth lecture (7 parts) last summer is interesting.
It is very similiar to his UC Berkley lecture the previous year, and just a bit shorter.
That lecture can be found at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIGV9VOOtew

For some time I've been mentally debating about
the psychological vs. the physical issues of Weight-Control.
In fact...I'm leaning toward it actually being a "physical" issue rather than a "psychological" issue.
Certainly weight control, for me and for many others, requires specific food behaviors,
but is that requirement primarily due to physiological causes NOT psychological causes?

I tend to be personally prejudiced against Atkins and low-carb eating,
based on my own food preferences, my observation of others,
and my years of exposure to the "mainline" view that a calorie is a calorie.

I did not lose my weight on low-carb, nor have I maintained it on low-carb eating.
However, although I am now in my 5th year of maintaining a very large weight loss,
it is still extremely difficult..
In fact, as time goes by, while my behavioral issues with eating have improved,
my physical issues with eating and weight have not.
It is harder for me now than it has ever been.

Therefore, I continue to seek for solutions, and I work to keep an open mind.
I am intrigued by Gary Taubes' Research.
I first read his book in 2007 when it came out,
since then I've read it thoroughly two more times, and found new information each time.
In fact, my book is so defaced by highlighters and notes from my prior readings,
that recently I bought another copy on my Kindle so I could read it again without distraction.
It was written for the medical community,
and it's contents aren't as easily digested by someone with a doctorate in law.

The concept of "disrespecting" the body is an interesting one.
It could be many different things to many different people.

Does "respect" the body mean "trust" the body?
Does it mean one can depend upon it to regulate itself and all body processes without assistance?

What about a type 1 diabetic -- surely injecting insulin and rigidly controlling
one's carbohydrate intake due to that condition would be "respecting" the body,
despite the fact that it has a physical condition
which makes it untrustworthy and in need of assistance to function normally?

The "traditional" concept is that obesity and eating disorders
are caused by a basic psychological problem, i.e. "gluttony and sloth".

However, WHAT IF, the Cause is a pysiological problem,
i.e. problem of insulin and fat regulation which varies in degree genetically,
and..excess eating and low energy are "side effects" of that physical condition?

WHAT IF, as the pre World War II german scientists believed,
the condition of obesity is similiar to the condition of type 1 Diabetes,
..in that a Diabetic body has a problem with too little Insulin, causing an energy intake problem,
an Obese body has a problem with too much Insulin, causing an
energy storage problem.

It is uncontroverted science that during the periods when Insulin is high,
fat cells cannot release stored energy.
So, IF there is a genetic disorder causing high insulin,
one would need a way of eating which lowers insulin.

It is undeniably true that Carbohydrates are what drive Insulin.
Certainly, Insulin is lowered during periods of fasting.. due to zero food.
Also and on a low-calorie balanced diet, one ordinarily lowers carb intake along with protein and fat intake.
Of course, this genetic condition (if there) is of varying degree,
and the more severe the insulin problem,
the more reduced the carb intake would need to be.

WHAT IF, all it took for me to easily maintain my weight would be to limit carbs,
Would I be willing to do so?
I don't know. I love carbs. I do not want to believe they are a problem.
I would have to be really CONVINCED they were really the CAUSE,
before I'd be willing to severely limit them.
And could I do it for life?

However, I must admit that at least the Low-Carb, Atkins type diet does appear to have some scientific basis,
While I see the Intuitive Eating concept as merely wishful thinking, an idea built on a defective foundation,
in that there is little basis to believe (through either Scientific Research or Antidotal Evidence)
that the body of an obese person can or will, automatically regulate itself to become normal weight.

Reinhard makes his position clear in his book, The No S Diet page 145, 146:

"For most of us, the word addiction is too simplistic."
,,be very careful when you use words like addiction and craving. By using terminology like this, you frame the problem in a way that suggests that is is hopeless, and that can be a self-fulling prophecy."

Reinhard appears to reject the position that there is a physiological ...i.e. genetic or chemical.. causation for obesity,
and holds to the "Mainline" position that obesity is
psychological ..i.e. behavioral..caused by 'gluttony and sloth'.
He states his personal philosophical and moral (good vs. evil) position on pages 231, 232:

It's certainly possible to be "genetically fat", but you probably arent.
If you're like most overweight people...you're fat because you eat too much."...
"So get this genes stuff out of your head; it's probably just and excuse,
and it certainly won't solve the problem."
"Immoderate eating, what used to be called gluttony,
is an evil even apart from its effects.
Sure it makes us fat, but it also puts us out of control.
It makes us slaves to our appetite.

Based on all the information I have at this moment, my own position is:
that the "mainline" concepts of NoS can be quite an effective weight-loss method for people who are "overweight",
but it generally proves to be a rather ineffective weight-loss tool for people who are "obese".
This difference tends to support the conclusions Gary Taubes reached after his lengthy research on obesity.
However, this does not prevent NoS from being a helpful tool even in Obesity.
One simply needs to follow Reinhard's suggestion on page 167
and combine NoS with another food plan. (i.e. diet).

[Clarica]

I don't know what you mean by food addiction.

I personally believe that many processed foods (and candy) have been scientifically tested and adjusted to increase consumption. It's weird, because if I sit and think about the taste of whatever it is, it isn't necessarily more delicious than some food at a more natural level of temptation. It's just more compelling to me. So, I try not to go up against scientifically developed foods as often, and especially to avoid repeat consumption, as in, I'll have some more of that thing. If it didn't satisfy, I've got to try something else. If it did, I shouldn't want more of it.

[RJLupin]

I think it's very real, sadly. Especially high sugar, high fat foods. Having in the past kicked addictions, I think the problems I have with food are very similar. I've struggled with binge eating for years, and it's always the same thing: intense cravings, followed by uncontrollable behavior (eating) which leads to a "high," but is followed by a crash and then cravings again. I think a lot of the behaviors are similar to addiction with other things, as well. Eating in secret, hiding food so "no one will know," etc are pretty much the same as what alcoholics and other drug addicts do. Some of it, to be sure, it psychological and a response to stress, but some of it HAS to be chemical. I don't think eating cookies until you throw up is something any normal, healthy person would do.

[wosnes]

As far as I know, these issues didn't exist 60+ years ago when most of the food we ate was real food. They also don't seem to exist in areas of the world where little to no processed foods are consumed. The more processed foods in the diet, the more we eat, the fatter we get and the less healthy we are.

[resident0063]

60 years ago we did have processed foods. Plenty of white bread and less vegetables. We did not have as much soda. Truth is we eat more of everything and because of many factors but I think because it is cheap and readily available. I think this might meet a clinical definition for
many can't stop, is hurtful to others, etc. But then anywhere from a third to 60 percent of us are addicted. Truth is it comes down to eating less of everything which is in your control. Also, I can't agree that it is just processes carbs I have and seen others take down 32 plus ounces of ribeye or other steak. Considering the calories this is no less of a binge than cake and cookies.

[Cassie]

I happen to be a psychologist but I also happen to hate psychobabble, and I'm afraid to say that it's my feeling that 'food addiction' falls in that category . I'm sure, however, that there are people who have found Overeaters Anonymous helpful, which is based on a model of abstinence & admission of lack of control. So I'm not doubting that it can be helpful to some people (and to each their own, really) but I do question the premises of this approach & its applicability to food.

I remember 2 years ago, I had to be hospitalised for about 1-2 months with a health issue which involved me taking codeine & morphine for pain relief. When I got home after leaving hospital (after the 2 months) I was given codeine to take home with me. To my surprise, I found i was still taking a little even when not in pain: it was the only way I could rest, relax & sleep. After a week passed I got a bit alarmed because I was making excuses to take codeine & talked to a dr about it. He talked about the highly addictive properties of opiates & suggested I cut down gradually, i.e. 1/2 pill, then 1/4 pill etc. Within a week it was all behind me.

Now that experience I can identify as a 'taste' of true addiction. Sure, behaviours around food (or other things, gambling, internet, whatever) can resemble the behaviours addicted people have. But having a similar behaviour doesn't equal there's an addiction involved. I simply don't believe that there is any evidence to show that food can be addictive. Also, I wholeheartedly agree with the person who wrote that it's very healthy to be able to imagine that one day in the future one can be trusted around desserts & able to figure out what a reasonable portion is & to stick to it. Life involves hope after all, & I don't see the point in giving up the hope for more structured, more healthy, more reasonable eating.

I do, on the other hand, see the point of using abstinence when it comes to hard drugs, of course that's a wholly different matter. I have my doubts about alcohol but I know that AA works for many people & alcohol is also a highly, highly addictive substance so it does make sense, perhaps, and seems to work for many people (but as I said, I have my doubts about the ethos of AA).

RJ Lupin wrote "Some of it, to be sure, it psychological and a response to stress, but some of it HAS to be chemical. I don't think eating cookies until you throw up is something any normal, healthy person would do". What I'd like to ask here is why doing something which 'no normal, healthy person would do' (and that in itself is such an ambiguous category) equals a 'chemical addiction'. It doesn't at all, it can be purely psychological, related to habits or all sorts of issues, & still result in this behaviour. It doesn't follow that only 'chemical' addictions lead to this behaviour. Plus, as I said before, the whole idea of 'chemical' addictions is overused & over widened. No evidence at all to assume that sugar falls in this category.

That's why I think NoS can work very well, because it questions the idea that certain foods are 'bad' and others 'good'. It leads to the creation of a healthy, reasonable, structured way of eating, and within that each person can figure out gradually which foods feel healthier, more nutritious, better for oneself, and which don't. I think it's a highly individual matter, I'm sure some people react better to a slightly low-carb diet or low-sugar diet or low-fat diet or whatever, but it's good to discover this gradually & sanely (and allowing exceptions) rather than creating an all-out, arbitrary ban.

Anyway, sorry this turned into an essay, just my two cents .

[osoniye]

[quote="RJLupin"]I think it's very real, sadly. Especially high sugar, high fat foods. Having in the past kicked addictions, I think the problems I have with food are very similar. I've struggled with binge eating for years, and it's always the same thing: intense cravings, followed by uncontrollable behavior (eating) which leads to a "high," but is followed by a crash and then cravings again. I think a lot of the behaviors are similar to addiction with other things, as well. Eating in secret, hiding food so "no one will know," etc are pretty much the same as what alcoholics and other drug addicts do. Some of it, to be sure, it psychological and a response to stress, but some of it HAS to be chemical. I don't think eating cookies until you throw up is something any normal, healthy person would do.[/quote]

I have to agree w/RJLupin here. I've read too many posts on other boards (and met some people in person), to be able to say there is no addiction involved. When people neglect their kids to get to their next carb binge and are obcessed with thoughts of food and literally pass out from overeating carbs, etc., until they manage to get on a program that keeps them off all flour products and refined sugar for 90 days and all that goes away, it makes a believer out of me.

[kccc]

While the "is it an addiction" discussion is interesting - and quite a good debate topic - in practical terms, I don't think it matters much.

That's because I think the No-S approach works either way. It contains and modifies behavior and allows the person to reclaim control - whether it's a physical or psychological issue. The behaviors needed to re-balance are the same.

I do think it's wise to combine No-S with "listening to your body" as much as possible, and I am convinced that people vary in terms of what they react to or are sensitive to. I do feel better if I eat "whole foods" as much as possible, and have learned that fast food is generally not satisfying. But I recognize that not everyone functions the same way I do. (So, it's quite possible that sugar functions at near-addiction level for some peole but not others.)

On second thought... the definition of "it's an addiction" (or not) DOES matter to the extent that it is or isn't USEFUL to you. If calling it one makes you feel powerless, please do stop. If, however, it makes you feel that you are triumphing against the odds, and thus increases your determination and sense of accomplishment, then that term may actually help.

[Cassie]

I think KCCC's right, it's what we make of the term 'addiction' that matters. However, just a side point to say that, from talking to addiction counsellors etc, there tends to be an acceptance in the research that 'chemical / physical' addiction is actually the EASIEST part to deal with even with hardcore addicts. The psychological behaviours associated with addiction are the HARDEST to deal with, and in that way Osonyie is completely right that these cycles & patterns of bingeing, hiding food and all that resemble other types of addictions. That doesn't mean it's chemical though or even if it (partly) is that's a small part of the story. It does mean it's something deeply ingrained & very hard to put a stop to (as most of us, to a degree, know firsthand).

[donnao]

.. so, along this same line of thinking, is it possible to go the rest of your
life without consuming sugar or processed carbs ?

i know NO ONE who has done this long term, including myself- i have been
sugar free/flour free for as long as 90 days at a time, and then i just
HAD to have some chocolate- and then HATED myself

i even have a friend who was sugar/flour/wheat free for a year. but is now in
"relapse"... the degree of self loathing she has for herself makes me both sad and angry-- angry for being told that something is possible when it appears that it is indeed NOT possible

i am searching for what is true for me, and i greatly appreciate the responses from the people on this board

Donna O
,

[kccc]

.. so, along this same line of thinking, is it possible to go the rest of your
life without consuming sugar or processed carbs ?

i know NO ONE who has done this long term, including myself- i have been
sugar free/flour free for as long as 90 days at a time, and then i just
HAD to have some chocolate- and then HATED myself

i even have a friend who was sugar/flour/wheat free for a year. but is now in
"relapse"... the degree of self loathing she has for herself makes me both sad and angry-- angry for being told that something is possible when it appears that it is indeed NOT possible

i am searching for what is true for me, and i greatly appreciate the responses from the people on this board

Donna O
,

It's just not a goal I'd set for myself any longer. The "containment" of two days a week is sufficient for me. And, more and more, I am trying to be moderate in my expectations of myself. "Good enough" really is, and expectations of "100% compliance forever" feel like a set-up for the kind of self-loathing that you describe your friend having. Been there, done that, moved on - it's not productive.

I will say, as a coda to the "addiction" bit, that in the days before No-S I used to gradually increase sugar intake until it felt like I was inhaling it. When that happened, I'd go on a "sugar fast" - no sugar, as little refined flour as I could manage. For about three days, it would be awful, then my system would seem to clear. I'd swear I'd never let myself get that bad again... and the cycle would gradualy repeat. (I did learn to recognize and address it faster.) With No-S, I simply never reach that point - two days a week just isn't enough to set it off. Five days a week of no sweets (some sugar, but minimal) keeps me out of that cycle completely. Whether it's physical or psychological, it doesn't have any traction to get started.

I now apply the "5 of 7" rule to ALL new habits I'm trying to form. The grace of non-failure if life prevents me from exercising one day keeps me from giving up... but the impetus is not to miss, because I want to reach or exceed my minimum target.

[Cassie]

I also think it's relevant whether it's desirable to go through one's life without any desserts (or worse, any wheat). Desserts & baked goods were always as far as I know a part of normal life, just not consumed in excess. (I believe this is actually also true of alcohol, tobacco etc but that's another story since addiction from those substances is more strongly physical, as well as psychological, while I think addiction to food is purely psychological- but even with tobacco & alcohol it's conceivable that someone would gradually learn moderation).

Yes, sugar may not be 'beneficial' in the same way veg or fruit are, but it's very very pleasurable & it's sad really (and unattainable, I think) to exclude it from life forever & ever.

[RJLupin]

I think it's very real, sadly. Especially high sugar, high fat foods. Having in the past kicked addictions, I think the problems I have with food are very similar. I've struggled with binge eating for years, and it's always the same thing: intense cravings, followed by uncontrollable behavior (eating) which leads to a "high," but is followed by a crash and then cravings again. I think a lot of the behaviors are similar to addiction with other things, as well. Eating in secret, hiding food so "no one will know," etc are pretty much the same as what alcoholics and other drug addicts do. Some of it, to be sure, it psychological and a response to stress, but some of it HAS to be chemical. I don't think eating cookies until you throw up is something any normal, healthy person would do.

I have to agree w/RJLupin here. I've read too many posts on other boards (and met some people in person), to be able to say there is no addiction involved. When people neglect their kids to get to their next carb binge and are obcessed with thoughts of food and literally pass out from overeating carbs, etc., until they manage to get on a program that keeps them off all flour products and refined sugar for 90 days and all that goes away, it makes a believer out of me.

I have known these people, too. I don't think it's just psychological, because I'd done the low-carb/low-sugar thing and it DID get rid of my cravings. Were it just some psychiatric problem, WHAT I am eating shouldn't matter; anything should work. Instead, though, it's always the same high sugar/high starch foods. I haven't ever known anyone that binged on eggs and steak.

The weird thing is, too, is that it started when I was very small. I was always obsessed with foods, and even then it was still the soda and sugar and starch. Trust me, I've been addicted before: to cigarettes, and to some muscle relaxers back when I was a teenager. Those were physical addictions, and the feeling I get from food is EXACTLY the same as the feeling I got when I tried to quit the nicotine and pills. Even the behavior is the same (obsessive thinking about them, lying to people about using them, digging them out of the trash when you fail to quit....which I have done with both cigs AND cookies) for both.

Again, cutting way back on sugar and carbs does seem to help, and I feel like a "normal" person. However, I also don't think it's possibly to live low-carb your whole life, so I am trying to find a way to make No S work for me. Oddly enough, since quitting snacking AND waiting longer between meals, some of the cravings have reduced as well.

[Graham]

Very stimulating thread.

.. so, along this same line of thinking, is it possible to go the rest of your
life without consuming sugar or processed carbs ?

i know NO ONE who has done this long term, including myself- i have been
sugar free/flour free for as long as 90 days at a time, and then i just
HAD to have some chocolate- and then HATED myself

I think what you are meaning is "can you go without these things in this environment" - otherwise the suggestion that they are indispensible would be obviously false - how do "primitive" people living in jungles manage, or our ancestors who had nowhere to get these things from? Same thing for the chocolate - if it suddenly wasn't available, you wouldn't die would you?

i even have a friend who was sugar/flour/wheat free for a year. but is now in
"relapse"... the degree of self loathing she has for herself makes me both sad and angry-- angry for being told that something is possible when it appears that it is indeed NOT possible
,

This really does suggest addiction or something like it to me - there is no absolute need for any of those things. I wonder about the self-loathing: is it because the abstention brought benefits which are now lost, or because she feels she let herself down?

I think sugar and other refined carbs can provoke a bodily reaction which could foster dependency - and that would make them addictive wouldn't it? (I'm referring to the rush/crash reaction which some people get to refined carbs and many get to sugar)

My approach is to avoid or minimise my own use of sugar and to use whole grains rather than flour, and if flour then wholemeal and if bread preferably sourdough - my own S day sugar experiences tell me sugar excess can make me feel very weak yet craving ever more.

[Dandelion]

This is an interesting topic. A year ago, I would have said no - but now I know better. I'm not talking about chemicals in our food that we have to get out of our systems, like caffeine. Nor am I talking about cravings driven my malnutrition from years of dieting. But how the body uses certain foods, just the way it uses drugs or alcohol, to help boost our brain chemistry that for various reasons is lacking.

it's sad that so many people struggle against what is basically human biology - a struggle the body is bound to win - and then feel like a failure, full of 'self-loathing'. It's not a lack of willpower - thousands of years of human survival have prepared these processes to ensure the survival of our species. What is needed is working in harmony with the body so there is no struggle - and no 'willpower' is needed.

There is so much substituting fake food for real food, asking the body to do more and more while fueling the body less and less ('eat less, exercise more'), cutting out real, nourishing, whole foods like natural fats and substituting altered versions propped up with chemicals and sugar, skimping on sleep - but so little understanding of what that does to the body, physically and emotionally.

[osoniye]

I found an interesting thing re: food addiction, about Yale's approach. They seem to see it as a real thing. There is a Scale people can test themselves with:

http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/resources ... cale09.pdf

and an article evaluating it, which I think you have to pay for if you want more than the abstract:

http://www.refdoc.fr/Detailnotice?cpsid ... raduire=en

Thought I'd pass those on while we're on the topic.

[wosnes]

I tend to think it's not an addiction, but processed/manufactured foods are engineered to make us want more. This is from NBC Nightly News.

This is why I think eating real foods is so important. Generally, you don't need to look at ingredients lists for what's been added to make you want more. What you're cooking with are the ingredients. Even the more questionable ingredients -- white flour, sugar and so on -- don't seem to be as problematic.

[wosnes]

I tend to think it's not an addiction, but processed/manufactured foods are engineered to make us want more. This is from NBC Nightly News.

This is why I think eating real foods is so important. Generally, you don't need to look at ingredients lists for what's been added to make you want more. What you're cooking with are the ingredients. Even the more questionable ingredients -- white flour, sugar and so on -- don't seem to be as problematic.

[BrightAngel]

Great Article.
Testing ways to trigger cravings for even "normal" people.

There is no ONE RIGHT WAY to eat for EVERYONE.
Because of my experiences with weight-maintenance during the past two years,
I find what Gary Taubes says in "Good Calories Bad Calories" to be of extreme interest.
Even if his Theories are true, there would still be large variations between people
with Extremely Obese people being more carb sensitive than Overweight or Normal weight people.

I'm certain that it is not a matter of One Diet Fits all.
There are a few people who can tolerate refined carbs,
like sugar and white flour etc, wthout any craving effect.
There are some people who can eat whole grains etc. without any craving effect.
There are also people who cannot eat any kind of grains at all
without triggering a heavy craving effect.
There are, of course, lots of other high-carb plant foods,
like fruits, misc. veggies, legumes etc. that also trigger cravings for some.

This past week I began experimenting with
a high-fat, adequate protein, low-carb plan that I've tweaked for myself,
and found a lot of my own food cravings growing fainter.
One thing is, that while attempting to follow this type of plan,
one is forced to eat primarily "natural" "unprocessed" foods.

I don't know how long I'll experiment with this,
but I'm finding it interesting right now.

[Cassie]

BrightAngel, just wanted to say I really appreciate your attitude, it's always so well balanced & leaves possibilities for different things working for different people. Many thanks for offering your thoughts, I always read them with interest .

[Over43]

I do think we become "Addicted", but as has been mentioned above, "manufactured foods make us want more." I have noticed you don't see people who are "addicted" to carrot juice (how many Jack Lalane juicers are sitting in the corner with the Bowflex collecting dust?), but I have heard many people say, "Man I need a Pepsi, or Mt. Dew, or Diet Coke..." (Fill in the blank...)

[osoniye]

Wow, BA, I'd like to hear more about what you're doing!!

[BrightAngel]

Wow, BA, I'd like to hear more about what you're doing!!

In response to your Inquiry, sometime later this week,
I will do a post about it in my Daily Thread Section,
so you'll be able to read about it there.
You can also click the PM butten to send me a private message.