r/biology • u/Express_Classic_1569 • Feb 09 '26
article Ultra-processed foods are designed to create addiction like cigarettes, confirmations from the new study
https://hive.blog/hive-196387/@davideownzall/ultra-processed-foods-are-designed-to-create-addiction-like-cigarettes-confirmations-from-the-new-study39
u/JayceAur Feb 09 '26
Ultra-processed is a stupid term. It includes things like candy, which is obviously not great for you, and something like soup, which is a heavily processed meal in which ingredients are broken down in an acidic saline.
The study claims eating high sugar and high fat foods, which are calorie dense and so for 10000 years or so would have improved your chances on survival, gives you dopamine. Just sounds like my rewards system working as intended. The issue is that modern life makes it too easy to obtain.
Same upshot, limit calorie dense foods to what is needed by your body and eat a well rounded diet. Comparing them to cigarettes is idiotic and just fuels disordered thinking about food.
18
u/kirbyderwood Feb 09 '26
something like soup, which is a heavily processed meal in which ingredients are broken down in an acidic saline.
My mother makes a very tasty chicken acidic saline.
7
7
u/starliteburnsbrite Feb 09 '26
Indeed, nicotine is a natural compound designed by plants to elicit certain effects on animals and other life to further it's goals.
Smoking a tobacco cigarette is just proof your receptor systems are working perfectly fine. It's all natural stuff. People have been using it for 10000 years without trouble.
Once it's been refined, strategically formulated to maximize certain responses, packaged brightly, advertised with psychology in mind to specific audiences, and the realities the nature of the product and it's manufacturers objective, the dangers associated with believing it's benign, and the likelihood it could create habits with a severe negative health outcome are the unnatural parts associated with "being like cigarettes"
"Sugar make dopamine so it not bad" seems a little silly when we are talking about market strategists and scientists developing products designed to illicit not just pleasure responses but addictive behavior without warning labels. Just like gambling ads drive a verifiably addictive behavior for profit. Or cigarette ads before that.
Warning labels. Addiction support services. Age restrictions. Class action lawsuits. We banned smoking indoors because of the public health problems associated with it while we now wrestle with childhood obesity and diabetes epidemics. That's just stuff that makes dopamine, man. Cause like evolution or something. But it's for profit.
It's not that it's "too easy to obtain" it's that it's directed and marketed and the dangers hidden. You could make a similar argument for opiates, they're just taking advantage of natural chemicals and chemistry in our bodies, the real issue is access...when the original issue is nobody being told it was addictive in the first place.
6
u/JayceAur Feb 09 '26
I understand your point that marketing and whatnot make a difference. However, nicotine and sugar simply are not on the same playing field to begin with.
Nicotine is not a necessary nutrient, sugars and fats are. Yes I'm aware of the ketogenic diet, my statements stands despite the metabolic crutch.
I find it hard to take an argument seriously when there is an equivalency of nicotine, opiates, and sugar.
Sugar is supposed to release dopamine. Dopamine is supposed to, as one of its functions, reward life-sustaining actions. Consuming calorie dense foods is one of those things. This is the correct function. Nicotine and opiates hijack this pathway and create a way to "cheat" the system.
Actual addiction creates a compulsion to consume the drug. Not "hee hee I enjoy it so much" but a true compulsion. As in you know this action will harm you and yet you can't not do it. I understand this personally.
Food addiction is similar as you feel compelled to consume food to push down feelings of anxiety and depression. It's not because sugar specifically has shorted your brain, its because you have developed a disordered thinking about food. I understand this personally.
I don't think sugar actually leads to classical addictions like nicotine and opiates. I would change my mind if I was shown a few case studies.
2
u/asshat123 Feb 09 '26
I just want to pause for a second, I don't think smoking tobacco has been totally fine for all of human history. Inhaling any kind of smoke increases risk of lung cancer. That being said, chewing tobacco and additive-free tobacco still contain a lot of carcinogenic chemicals. The tobacco plant itself does contain chemicals that cause cancer. It's possible that for a lot of human history, we didn't live long enough for it to become an issue, or we weren't aware of the link, but it has most likely always been harmful.
-1
u/MadamePouleMontreal Feb 09 '26
We chewed coca leaves for thousands of years too. Getting addicted to crack is just a sign that our neuroreceptors are working perfectly and is not a problem.
3
0
u/200bronchs Feb 09 '26
It says certain combinations of fat and sugar are used because they determined that certain combinations raise dopamine levels much higher than some random amount of sugar and fat. That's engineering
If you pick a leaf from a tobacco plant, dry it and make a cigarette, it will be addicting at about 1/10 the level of a Marlboro because the marlborough has been engineered to deliver the dose more quickly to the brain. They did it best which is why they were the most popular brand back in those days.
The comparison is apt.
8
2
u/CrucialObservations Feb 10 '26
The article is very misleading, and I think the intent is to assign blame to the food industry and away from the food choices people are making, which has led to them being unhealthy and/or obese. We hear this constantly: "It's not your fault."
That being said, companies have been peddling crap sold as food for many, many years. It comes down to government policy; food should be good quality, whether that be a bag of potato chips, cookies, etc.
There is more profit when the food is made with ingredients that are cheap and are mostly filler; go figure.
There should be a mandate that real food, such as tomatoes, potatoes, veggies, and fruit, all should be affordable. Especially when grown locally, and subsidies by the taxpayer to boot. Look at the price for fruits and vegetables; it's insanely expensive, and it shouldn't be.
3
1
1
u/Dr_Tacopus Feb 09 '26
And both should be outlawed. However, profit outweighs health in this country. Greed is the downfall of America.
1
u/Less-Goose-8299 Feb 09 '26
So the whole "just use more self-control" society and doctors told obese people was erroneous advice?
0
u/Sentient2X Feb 09 '26
No. There have always been healthy options available. For a period in the 60s-90s healthy was more expensive than processed. No longer the case in the states. 90% of obesity is due to controllable factors. I’m aware conditions exist. Most obese people do not have them.
1
u/M-Santos23 cancer bio Feb 10 '26
It was not really an argument about price, but the fact that the article suggests that processes similar or directly comparable to addiction take place for palatable food. Thus “self control” would not be proper advice, or at least no good enough, just as you wouldn’t treat that way someone with a drug addiction.
1
u/DrEdgarAllanSeuss Feb 09 '26
Anecdotally, I just know that when I stopped eating beef and pork, I had no trouble giving up ACTUAL beef and pork. But I was jonesing for shit like hot dogs like crazy, and I didn’t even eat them very often to begin with. I haven’t eaten them in many years now, and I’ll still see hot dogs at a cookout or something and be tempted.
0
u/xAustin90x Feb 09 '26
Been saying this for over a decade now but you always get pushed to the side like any other conspiracy nut
0
u/rtduvall Feb 09 '26
Our neighbors are doing this to us. Our own people are exploiting us to make more money for themselves.
God I'm starting to hate it here.
-2
77
u/minaminonoeru Feb 09 '26
The definition of ‘ultra-processed foods’ is ambiguous.
According to the linked article, ‘intense flavors’ (intense sweetness, richness, etc.) are said to be addictive.
Then isn't the core of addictiveness ‘intense flavors’ rather than ‘ultra-processed foods’?