Just Drop It and Eat: Addiction

Showing posts with label Addiction. Show all posts

Monday, March 18, 2013

Dessert Happens

Saturday night. New York City. True story.

I’m out to dinner with my husband while visiting New York City, at a restaurant highly praised by a foodie—friend I’ll call Lloyd. And Lloyd says “you must try the desserts—they’re amazing”, or something to that effect. It’s a 45-minute wait for a seat at the bar (a beautiful, relaxed setting, I’ll add). We share a couple of wine flights—those 3 oz samples, and order our meal.

That part was easy. The arctic char appetizer was divine, surpassed by the two entrees we decided in advance to share. (Basically, I have a hard time deciding and don’t want to limit my options, so I petition my husband that we should share and he generally obliges as he did Saturday. Yes, marrying him was a good decision.)

Skillfully prepared fish and a butternut squash lasagna—the labels do no justice to their taste. Totally wow, and I don’t use superlatives for food too readily. The bread was similarly fabulous—a whole-wheat sourdough seemingly right from the oven served with sweet butter. Of course I enjoyed a couple of slices as they were put before me.

I was quite satisfied from this leisurely paced meal. A warm beverage would’ve capped it just fine. But Lloyd’s words hovered. I knew I needed to try dessert. What to do? We started with coffee, a spiced French Press, while the menus sat before us. Okay. Let me just inquire, I thought. So I engaged the bartender/waitperson. “Can you tell me about the lemon curd dessert with chocolate and hazelnut crumble (which sounds so weird I can’t even image getting it but I just need to know!)? And she did. “What would yousuggest?” I prodded further. “This or the apple pie with ice cream?” (which sounded so conventional, I thought). She described them both in glowing terms, then added that the apple pie is the restaurant’s most popular. “Fine, then. We’ll take it. It’s decided.” (My husband, by the way, was somewhat indifferent to having dessert that night.)

Surely I could’ve passed on dessert. But guess what followed? Fresh baked, flaky apple pie with homemade vanilla bean ice cream, of course.

AND the lemon curd dessert—gratis, I’ll add! This lovely waitperson felt we really needed to try both—perhaps she felt my decision-making pain when I announced my dessert selection.

Now what would you do?

Thank her profusely, then return the second dessert?
Take a couple of bites, then leave the rest because you had enough?
Eat both desserts—sharing them of course—even though it is completely unnecessary?

So after we completed devoured the two desserts, which were as delectable as our foodie-friend promised, what to do? We didn’t need the extra calories (and thankfully calorie counts have no place on these non-chain restaurant menus!)

Breathe. The meal was over and we thoroughly enjoyed it. This was hardly the best match of intake and need. Rather, fullness had been overridden by desire, by opportunistic eating (when would I get to try their desserts again?), and the like.

What’s the worst-case scenario? Okay, we took in more than we needed that meal. So what? This is more the exception than the rule—our eating is generally quite fitting for our need. Compensation would lead to consequences—restriction results in excess hunger and deprivation and potentially rebound overeating, or at a minimum, preoccupation with eating.

Besides, we thoroughly enjoyed the two desserts, and the whole dining experience. No regrets.

Would I do anything differently in the future? Perhaps. I just might make a point of going there more often, so it doesn’t feel like a now-or never experience. Gramercy Tavernis not going away anytime soon. I just need to remember that.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Obsessive Workouts and Protein Powders: How Concerned Should We Be?

Reactions to the NY Times article and the Pediatrics study on teens and muscle-enhancing behaviors.

I'm bothered by something I read. "Compared with a sedentary lifestyle of video games and TV, an obsession with working out may not quite qualify as a health hazard", as stated in last week's NY Times article. While the article brought to light the silent struggle many boys deal with—or rather, don't deal with—their obsession with weight training, dietary modification and steroid use to achieve the 'perfect' body—it failed big time in educating readers about when to be concerned, and what we can do to prevent this unhealthy trend. But this is not just about boys—the Pediatrics article identified that girls, too, are taking steroids and more frequently protein shakes to increase muscle mass while pushing activity.

Yes, teens, both boys and girls, have become more focused on increasing their muscle mass. "Strong is the new skinny" is a current sentiment; neither being healthy nor slim is good enough. The bar has been raised necessitating increased muscle mass to change one's appearance. And the price they pay is far greater than suggested in the Times' quote above.

Lean and muscular, yes, but nor much of a sex drive!

But how big a deal is it if a teen—or an adult—takes a supplement or pushes their training to change their appearance? The actual study, in my humble opinion, did little to differentiate unhealthy disordered behaviors from more innocuous ones. What's the issue with weight training to increase muscle mass, any way? What's the harm in your taking a protein shake to bulk up your muscle a bit? (Steroid use is another story, and that is well addressed in the Times article.)

If you're like twenty-three year old Nathan, it's quite a big deal. He relied on the gym-endorsed protein powders, "to promote muscle growth". All things high in protein were considered safe—if they were also very low fat. Despite my urging to reduce his exceedingly high protein intake, and to liberalize his intake of fats and carbohydrate, his kidneys began to fail, struggling to filter the extraordinarily large load of protein waste products. His thoughts were all consumed with when he'd be able to get to the gym and when and what he'd be eating next.

But this is not solely a male thing, as the Pediatrics study shows. Girls, though, are more likely to modify their diet, while boys will increase their gym training to 'meet their needs'.

And what if it were high in carbs?

Like Karen, you may be spending more and more time at the gym while restricting your intake, ultimately finding it too stressful to live life with school and work demands, along with your rigid workout regimen.

Certainly, drinking protein supplements is not itself a cause for alarm. But relying on shakes in lieu of real food is. It impacts our ability to socialize, to be flexible in eating situations and to get all that we need nutritionally. A diet devoid of fats and carbohydrate will be deficient in much-needed nutrients, and typically in calories. A sense of deprivation often results, accompanied by obsessive thinking about food and eating and weight.

As for the workouts, where do we draw the line about what is healthy and safe, and what is excessive? If you're in a community of triathaloners, marathon runners or iron men/women, a few hours at the gym will seem inconsequential.

But is it driven by a preoccupation and distortion that anything short of a few hours will leave you fat or unfit? Many of my patients believe falsely that working out is always a good thing. Nothing can be further from the truth. When intake is inadequate, working out not only won't build muscle mass, it will help break down muscle to convert it to fuel! And when net intake is substantially less than need (either because of very high activity or low intake) metabolic rate slows down, so you burn fewer calories 24/7. Certainly not what you intended!

Surprisingly, there was no mention of the low testosterone levels that result in males, similar to the drop in hormones seen in females with anorexia. Tell this to those boys and it might motivate for change. Sex drive drops, facial hair diminishes and risks to bone density increase as well. For boys in their growing years—which might last until 18 or 19 years—the consequence may be stunted growth. And the opportunity for catch up is lost once the bone growth plates have closed. Most boys and girls do care about their height, but do they realize this may result?

And what messages are we conveying to our kids with their school BMI screenings? Are we faulting them for their high BMI (which will remain high as muscle mass increases and height fails to increase)? Or are we fairly looking at an increasing BMI percentile for that individual as a possible marker for unhealthy behaviors—be it steroid use resulting in rapidly increasing muscle mass or binge eating? Are we presenting being obese as so horrific that even if their behaviors are healthy, we tell them they need to lose weight? Is a drop in BMI in an overweight child healthy if they starved themselves or compulsively exercised to get there?

Shouldn't we be screening with questions about thoughts and behaviors, not just BMI?

Are we reinforcing their interest in fitness because we perceive it as healthy—no matter what? Do we share the same distorted views about all things protein-rich being "good" while villainizing carbohydrate-rich grains and fat-rich foods, too? Are we contributing to the misinformation they hold fast to? Why don't we recognize that there is sometimes pathological thinking and behaviors that drive extended workouts and dietary changes?

I don't have the answers. But I do know that we are influenced by cultural standards of beauty, and that these images have become more and more unattainable. Yes, without steroids, you can't possibly bulk up like many of your weight-lifting role models, nor can you be both healthy and low weight as the air-brushed magazine pics would lead you to believe.

Something has to change. And it can start with you. Add your comment. Share this piece. Counter misinformation and acknowledge unhealthy behaviors—even when society fails to.

Consider these older posts for more information on topics covered in this post:

http://dropitandeat.blogspot.com/2010/07/daily-exercise-is-must-or-so-you-think.html

http://dropitandeat.blogspot.com/2012/03/protein-new-black.html

Saturday, September 29, 2012

What I've Learned About Food Addiction

This post applies to all so read on.

I'm addicted to desserts and I can't keep them in the house. They just call to me. I can't simply eat a piece or a small portion—no, not me. Once I start I can't stop and I have to eat them until their gone or I need to throw them in the trash—although sometimes, I’m embarrassed to say, I dig them out of the trash because I just can't let them slip away. And I never know when I'll get to eat them again. Avoidance—total avoidance seems like the only way—yet it never seems to work. I just have no willpower.

No, that's not me speaking—although these statements were certainly true for me at some point in my life. Yes, that time in my early twenties when my eating was emotionally driven and I had no idea what hunger and comfortable fullness felt like. Rather, the comments above were spoken by many patients that walk into my offices—by the overweight who have unsuccessfully struggled to lose some weight with rigid diets and deprivation, and by those of average weight and below who now approach food in a black and white way, seeing food as the enemy.

And why wouldn’t they, and you, feel that there is no hope, that you must be addicted to food in the way others are addicted to drugs? The debate about food addiction has again emerged, with media distortions and outrageous researcher conclusions on rat studies and MRI findings. And it will leave you feeling hopeless—unless you see how you are being manipulated and left to believe you are powerless.

Yum! Salted caramel.

The Wall Street Journal put out a rather balanced piece on food addiction. Yet the NY Times article on this subject is an embarrassment. "Can Food Be Addictive?" makes reference to several studies suggesting that overeating is an addiction, perhaps not much different than addictions to drugs and alcohol. The examples cited?

"...Princeton University and University of Florida researchers have found that sugar-binging rats show signs of opiate like withdrawal when their sugar is taken away — including chattering teeth, tremoring forepaws and the shakes. When the rats were allowed to resume eating sugar two weeks later, they pressed the food lever so frantically that they consumed 23 percent more than before", they tell us.

Well, I’ve never had my paws shake and my canines never chattered, but this sounds like sugar dependency is a serious culprit! That’s what they’re leading us to believe. But a more detailed review of this 2011 study sheds a whole different light on things. We learn that rats were first deprived, going 12 hours without food to eat, prior to being given the sugar solution. And, this binging was dependent upon the timing of the feeding. One blog describes how "... rats who had received only the food chow on this intermittent schedule, or had unrestricted access to food and sucrose, did not show these effects." That's right—not depriving the rats and actually allowing them access to food including sugar prevented binge eating. The blog reporting on this study appropriately summarizes:

I don't wait for special occasions to eat these!

“This means that after being deprived of the food or drug the rat will self-administer extremely large quantities of the substance once it is available again. This behavior tapers off once the animals are sated, but these binges will consistently occur after each period of deprivation.”

Ok, so they binged when given sugar. But more importantly the research actually confirms the very problem with food deprivation and the resulting out of control eating that we see in our clients who feel trapped in this cycle. No, there was no problem when they could freely feed on food and sugar as desired. Rather, the problem with binging resulted from the withholding of food for long periods, which set the rats and sets my rat-like readers up for trouble.

Might I add that we are not rats in our ability to step in and change our situation. We are not limited to our cages—we can choose to step out of our environment and to control our triggers. And we can certainly avoid deprivation—the biggest trigger for binge eating. You didn’t need a rat study to tell you that, though!

Another study referenced by the NY Times article to support the food addiction theory drew equally absurd conclusions. Researchers at Oregon Research Institute surveyed 151 teens who were in a healthy weight range about their eating habits and food cravings. Then they did brain-scan studies on them while the kids looked at pictures of chocolate milkshakes—more activity in the brain was considered to be linked with greater cravings. Next, they gave them a milkshake to drink while they were having an MRI scan. The kids who'd reported eating the most ice cream over the past few weeks prior to the MRI scans registered lower activity in their reward centers from the milkshake—in other words, less craving for the milkshakes. To me that’s a good thing. Those very kids who had access and consumed these items regularly did not have their brains light up as if they were getting some big reward when offered a milkshake—no, it was no big deal to them.

Yet the NY Times states that these findings "suggest that just as drug abusers and alcoholics need increasingly larger doses over time, children who are regular ice-cream eaters may require more and more ice cream for the reward centers of their brains to indicate that they are satisfied." One study author similarly concludes that not having as great a response to eating the food (based on MRI) is problematic—that “over consumption of these foods down regulates reward processes. That may, in turn, make you eat more." Really? That's quite a strange conclusion to draw, in my opinion, especially as these kids were not overweight. (in spite of their more frequent ice cream consumption.

Further, this study attributes possible addictive-like qualities of ice cream shakes, made with Haagen Daz ice cream, to the high fat content. But if it is about the fat, why don’t we have addictions to such high fat items as prime rib or deep fried chicken? Or whole milk, even? No, this just isn’t seen.

High fat and satisfying!

So maybe it's not the nutrient, the fat or sugar (as implicated above) content at all but the conditions under which we eat. Is it any surprise that those reward centers of the brain would light up in MRIs, similar to what occurs with other addictions, when these very food items are used in our culture as rewards? You know, you had a hard day, so you indulge yourself with an ice cream, ironically just as the old Haagen Daz ads suggested? Or as a young child, you scrape your knee and your mom gives you some cookies to feel better. If we could only allow ourselves to enjoy such pleasurable foods as ice cream without the value judgment we add to it!

The take home message.

What's not in question is how you feel. Clearly, when you experience out of control eating you feel as if your are addicted to food—that you have no control over certain food items or types and that it therefore must be out of your hands to seize control. And with the recent studies I referenced, you might be convinced this is true. But the only clear link with what feels like food addiction is food deprivation.

This is not a meal!

Continuing to use food as a reward for a hard day or for eating healthy all week is a huge mistake.

If you’re feeling like you’re addicted to food, consider changing your relationship with food and move from black and white thinking, giving yourself permission to eat those foods you enjoy but think are forbidden.

Eat in a balanced way--and I don't mean by following the My Plate way. Rather, make the foods you eat enjoyable. Sure, include satisfying less processed foods, too--but not at the exclusion of other foods.