QuarkJets posted:Out of all of your articles, only one tries to address whether or not sugar, specifically, is an addictive substance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12055324. But this article is describing psychological addiction, not chemical addiction. You also linked to a popsci article describing the same effects with fatty foods. As an aside, the psych/chemical distinction in addiction definitions is actually a difficult, loaded space, especially from a policy or ethics perspective("psychological addiction" is a problem unto itself, and both definitions are abused frequently in the literature). The more central problem with the article is that it's a rat model study and thus worthless in terms of analogy or extension to humans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:As an aside, the psych/chemical distinction in addiction definitions is actually a difficult, loaded space, especially from a policy or ethics perspective("psychological addiction" is a problem unto itself, and both definitions are abused frequently in the literature). The more central problem with the article is that it's a rat model study and thus worthless in terms of analogy or extension to humans. There's also the issue that eating unhealthy foods is a bad habit that can be unlearned, and once it's unlearned and a person switches to healthy food it's kind of self reinforcing. Occasionally when I'm eating out with friends or family, I'll order some horribly unhealthy food like a bacon cheeseburger, and my stomach will remind me about half an hour later that I don't eat that type of crap food anymore. Yeah, that's not a wagon I'm about to fall off. Compare that to something like smoking or alcohol. Where if you are a recovering addict, it's really easy to screw up and fall off the wagon. I've quit smoking probably half a dozen times by now. What inevitably happens is I'll go out drinking, have a few beers, bum a smoke or two, have a few more beers, then the next day I'm back to smoking half a pack a day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:There's also the issue that eating unhealthy foods is a bad habit that can be unlearned, and once it's unlearned and a person switches to healthy food it's kind of self reinforcing. So what's a healthy food, and in what way is a bacon cheeseburger supposedly unhealthy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The more central problem with the article is that it's a rat model study and thus worthless in terms of analogy or extension to humans. Model organisms have value, believe it or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
I have a looming deadline, so naturally it's time for an effortpost on a comedy forum based on a total tangent that happened to be vaguely related to my research. Priorities. This isn't really in reply to anyone but to just get the discussion moving. Is sugar addictive? I'd say no, but there's some similarities worth thinking about. Trying to nicely categorize a behavior as "addiction" is pretty difficult. One impediment is that there isn't a universal definition of addiction; it's a behavioral state that means different things to different people. Even when you consider only recreational drugs and only ask experts, you end up with different opinions because it's not a strict or uniform on/off state. A psychologist might say that you're only addicted when there is dysfunctional social behavior (heavy drug-seeking behavior, ignoring relationships, etc.) but a neurobiologist might consider a lower threshold based on seeing reinforcement at a more basic level. Drug addiction, very loosely, occurs when reward circuitry has been co-opted because you're throwing intensely rewarding stuff at it. Natural rewards include normal food, and I see obesity as a disorder in eating behavior. Maybe not addiction, per se, but it's in the same behavioral spectrum. Here's a review article that goes over the concept: http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v12/n11/full/nrn3105.html quote:The hedonic properties of food can stimulate feeding behaviour even when energy requirements have been met, contributing to weight gain and obesity. Similarly, the hedonic effects of drugs of abuse can motivate their excessive intake, culminating in addiction. Common brain substrates regulate the hedonic properties of palatable food and addictive drugs, and recent reports suggest that excessive consumption of food or drugs of abuse induces similar neuroadaptive responses in brain reward circuitries. Here, we review evidence suggesting that obesity and drug addiction may share common molecular, cellular and systems-level mechanisms. We know that more people are getting fat, and we know that this is happening because energy intake is going up. One big hypothesis under this framework is that one of the contributing factors is the hedonic and metabolic impact of a subset of modern "processed" foods (yes, a poorly defined category) that are calorie-dense, high in glycemic load, and high in fat. The impact is not at all restricted to these foods, but they're the common culprits because they're cheap, they're accessible, and their popularity correlates with the obesity epidemic. Basically, the brain is hard-wired to deal with regulating food intake in a natural environment, and it is not equipped to react to the availability of exceptionally rewarding foods. These highly rewarding foods incentivize us to eat more and gently caress up energy homeostasis. Instead of self-regulating our intake to match our expenditure, we overeat. You don't tell an alcoholic that they can be cured by drinking less and then move on — of course that's the ultimate solution, but you need a strategy and support to get there, because we recognize that there is a serious ailment underlying disordered alcohol-seeking. Likewise, I think that "eat less" is not useful advice to the obese, because there is an underlying motivational problem. And the reason it's useful to identify food categories that is that we create better public health strategies than "eat less, exercise more" and replace the poorly supported and contradictory fad advice (don't eat fat! don't eat cholesterol! don't eat carbs! don't eat red meat!) that nobody follows anyway. Gary Taubes and his band of idiots have the incorrect contention that the problem is strictly metabolic, that carbohydrates drive insulin production which drive fat storage. This is not that idea. It is also not the Lustig idea, which gets closer (he's written about food reward) but puts undue blame on sugar. High sugar foods are included in the category of highly rewarding foods, but there exist "high sugar" foods which are not rewarding to the same extent (like fruit), as well as "low sugar" foods which are rewarding (like deep fried foods).
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:34
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Model organisms have value, believe it or not. Yes, and not for the conclusions that the article draws. The sugar wars have produced a torrent of poo poo articles from people throwing sugar at whatever materials they have in their labs and publishing off of its presumed relevance and controversy. This has been made worse by clinicians who work with people with eating disorders, who want to expand the definition of addiction to cover the cases they work with so that those individuals can get insurance coverage. Kenny works with those people. His "these are both brain reward processes" approach doesn't hold up. You are digging yourself a hole here. Stop.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
It's almost as if giving a comprehensive, rational definition of a condition in the behaviour of a profoundly irrational being is a difficult thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
I actually know gently caress-all about Kenny, I just liked the article. If he has conflicts of interest, then I'm sorry for not being aware of that. I'd prefer to be attacked based on the merits of the scientific argument rather than on political poo poo. Kent Berridge has written about the same ideas and nobody can attack his character.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
There's nothing scientific in arguing about the definition of a politically loaded term. And addiction is nothing if not politically loaded. It's worthless goddamn topic that gets us nowhere but retardation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
People in this thread have a literal chemical addiction to arguing minutiae. Just telling them to stop won't help, we need a treatment plan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:People in this thread have a literal chemical addiction to arguing minutiae. Just telling them to stop won't help, we need a treatment plan. This is DnD moderator dude. Furiously arguing about inane bullshit is what we're all here for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:It's worthless goddamn topic that gets us nowhere but retardation. Welcome to D&D
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:inane bullshit  you could be more gentle when you point out my poor life choices..
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
In other news, China, not to be outdone by the decadent American GloFish, is forging ahead in their endeavors to expand availability of franken-pets. Here, have a 1600$ GM micro-pig, cuddly and bacony, for your pleasure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:36
|
|
Anosmoman posted:In other news, China, not to be outdone by the decadent American GloFish, is forging ahead in their endeavors to expand availability of franken-pets. Here, have a 1600$ GM micro-pig, cuddly and bacony, for your pleasure. I notice a distinct lack of discussion of lifespan or health problems in that writeup. quote:Daniel Voytas, a geneticist at the University of Minnesota in Saint Paul, hopes that any buzz over gene-edited pets does not hamper progress in developing gene-editing techniques for alleviating human disease and creating new crop varieties. “I just hope we establish a regulatory framework — guidelines for the safe and ethical use of this technology — that allows the potential to be realized," he says. "I worry that pet mini pigs distract and add confusion to efforts to achieve this goal."
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
A researcher got caught straight up accepting money for GMO studies to use in court cases to influence law. Except unlike the usual baseless allegations, it's the anti -GMO side that's actually been caught doing it. Oops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I actually know gently caress-all about Kenny, I just liked the article. If he has conflicts of interest, then I'm sorry for not being aware of that. I'd prefer to be attacked based on the merits of the scientific argument rather than on political poo poo. Kent Berridge has written about the same ideas and nobody can attack his character. It's too late, you talked about sugar and nutrition in Discendo Vox's natural habitat. I recommend that you roll over and expose your belly in a gesture of submission, so he knows you are not a threat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 02:56
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:It's too late, you talked about sugar and nutrition in Discendo Vox's natural habitat. I recommend that you roll over and expose your belly in a gesture of submission, so he knows you are not a threat. It's just "nutrition", drat it. Sugar is a subcategory. Get it right or I'll steal your eggs.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:A researcher got caught straight up accepting money for GMO studies to use in court cases to influence law. Except unlike the usual baseless allegations, it's the anti -GMO side that's actually been caught doing it. Oops. It turns out that people with really strong opinions about things play dirty and don't care about facts. This should not come as a shock to anyone except idiots who have lost the ability to take a step back and reevaluate their position.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 10:34
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
What I don't get is who's making money from this? Why is there money exchanging hands to fight GMOs? Who stands to gain from this? Whole Foods, seriously?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Well it was an organic food "entrepreneur" so he's got a pretty clear financial interest in GMOs being bad (and therefore "organic" being good).
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:What I don't get is who's making money from this? Why is there money exchanging hands to fight GMOs? Who stands to gain from this? Whole Foods, seriously? Yes? The 'organic' food movement is like, a huge money machine dude. It means nothing, nearly anyone can claim it, and now with this absurd 'fight' they get to portray themselves as noble hard workin farmers fighting FRANKENFOODS. The more GMO foods look bad, the better the 'organic' alternatives look, even if they're not alternatives at all but really the exact same thing with a 50% markup for the fancy 'organic' label. Why do you think Whole Foods was a major force in the whole 'we gotta label GMOs' fight? Because next to nothing in their stores would count, and they'd get to be the guys going 'oh, HEB uses evil nasty GMO food, we don't, come to us'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:What I don't get is who's making money from this? Why is there money exchanging hands to fight GMOs? Who stands to gain from this? Whole Foods, seriously? Organic food is a multi billion dollar business, too. There's plenty of industry funding to go around from all sides in the debate so defaulting to "the position convenient for company x (which i hate) must be wrong because shillbux" is even less useful than normal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
I got in an argument with a guy about this not too long ago, who said that he opposed GMOs because of their potential to harm ecosystems. I brought up how we've been doing selective breeding for thousands of years. His argument, as it went, was that native species don't have a chance to evolve alongside GMOs. That is, they're able to co-evolve with selectively bred plants over many generations and respond to the gradual changes, but not with GMOs, because the changes are abruptly produced in ways that would be impossible with selective breeding. I don't have much knowledge of biology at all, so I couldn't really give him a good refutation. He is, or at least claims to be, an evolutionary biologist. Anyone who knows this subject better than me want to weigh in?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 03:03
|
|
Polybius91 posted:I got in an argument with a guy about this not too long ago, who said that he opposed GMOs because of their potential to harm ecosystems. I brought up how we've been doing selective breeding for thousands of years. His argument, as it went, was that native species don't have a chance to evolve alongside GMOs. That is, they're able to co-evolve with selectively bred plants over many generations and respond to the gradual changes, but not with GMOs, because the changes are abruptly produced in ways that would be impossible with selective breeding. My (limited) understanding is that it's a fair concern. Selective breeding and associated human interventions have caused invasive species ecosystem problems in the past. There are programs in place in the US to limit exposure concerns here, and procedures (which vary by organism) to prevent an invasive species problem. The best rejoinder is that it's a reason to be opposed to specific GMO practices, and to want certain forms of premarket approvals regulation, not GMO categorically. This is the sort of thing that's handled by implementing a mandated prior impact analysis, not with (e.g.) consumer-side labeling. It's complicated because GMO interventions aren't just in food products, so a number of different acronyms can be involved. vvvv Anosmoman's answer is better. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Oct 14, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Seeds that we use for agriculture today aren't bred in the field they are grown for food in. They are grown in lab fields and test sites. Native species near farms will never have a chance to adapt until after the seed is in it's final state anyway. GMO crops are extremely likely to be maladapted for competing against other species in nature as well, since they are optimized for growing under human care. They're also usually hybrids.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Polybius91 posted:I got in an argument with a guy about this not too long ago, who said that he opposed GMOs because of their potential to harm ecosystems. I brought up how we've been doing selective breeding for thousands of years. His argument, as it went, was that native species don't have a chance to evolve alongside GMOs. That is, they're able to co-evolve with selectively bred plants over many generations and respond to the gradual changes, but not with GMOs, because the changes are abruptly produced in ways that would be impossible with selective breeding. It depends entirely on how and under what conditions you breed the plants. Maybe it's in a small plot of land or in a few greenhouses, effectively isolated from the wider ecosystem. In any case we routinely introduce selectively bred plants to places where they have never grown before. The US might develop a new strain of corn and use it for decades before it's exported to and used on a different continent or to a country where corn has never grown naturally before. And again, GMO can mean suppressing one single gene - trivial changes - which happens all the time naturally, from one generation to the next. His argument relates to changing "too much" at the time which begs the question: What is the acceptable amount of change?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:What I don't get is who's making money from this? Why is there money exchanging hands to fight GMOs? Who stands to gain from this? Whole Foods, seriously? The tone of your post implies that Whole Foods isn't an enormous corporation with deep pockets, but in 2014 Whole Foods and Monsanto generated roughly equal amounts of revenue (around $15B). But yes, organic farming is an enormous industry, and many groups benefit financially from the fight against GMOs. Usually anti-GMO ballot initiatives are bankrolled by private organizations like these QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Oct 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The tone of your post implies that Whole Foods isn't an enormous corporation with deep pockets, but in 2014 Whole Foods and Monsanto generated roughly equal amounts of revenue (around $15M).vv That's billion, with a B.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
blowfish posted:That's billion, with a B. Right, corrected Obviously hackers hired by BIG ORGANIC edited my post to make it seem like the industry is smaller than it is
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Right, corrected Don't forget all the Organic Research Groups that have popped up that fund this crap, while at the same time trying to sell snake out to people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The tone of your post implies that Whole Foods isn't an enormous corporation with deep pockets, but in 2014 Whole Foods and Monsanto generated roughly equal amounts of revenue (around $15B). I'm not implying anything, I'm asking a question because clearly I didn't realize how big this pro-organic anti-gmo thing is. I guess it makes sense, but it's still crazy to me, all the hippie anti-corporate organic nuts are living a lie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I'm not implying anything, I'm asking a question because clearly I didn't realize how big this pro-organic anti-gmo thing is. There's an awful lot of people for whom ideology is more important than reality. Probably all of us, if we're honest with ourselves. We all have some blind spot somewhere where we cling to an idea despite evidence that it's not actually correct. It's the primary way that advertisers manipulate us into buying stuff, actually. Some people get very wound up about turning their pretty lies into reality, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:And again, GMO can mean suppressing one single gene - trivial changes - which happens all the time naturally, from one generation to the next. His argument relates to changing "too much" at the time which begs the question: What is the acceptable amount of change? Considering that entire genome duplication events can and frequently do occur naturally, the acceptable amount of change must be "all of it".
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I'm not implying anything, I'm asking a question because clearly I didn't realize how big this pro-organic anti-gmo thing is. Somewhat, yes. I'm sure that a lot of them would still be living under the naturalistic fallacy regardless, but it's hilarious to watch these people that stump for "sustainable farming" buy foods that are completely out of season but think it's okay because they're shopping at Whole Foods. And say "FOLLOW THE MONEY" or "MONSANTO SHILLS" or "GMOS ARE ALL ABOUT PROFIT" without any idea of just how big and powerful and extremely profitable their favorite industry has become.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
I love science. But ignorance? No, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
GMOs are about profit oh my god it's like monetary gain rules the world of something crazy!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:GMOs are about profit oh my god it's like monetary gain rules the world of something crazy! Do you just go from thread to thread and poo poo post? Evidence or stop posting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Do you just go from thread to thread and poo poo post? Genetically modified crops are genetically modified to boost production and therefore boost productivity. Making a plant able to grow twice as fast twice as big will increase your profit margin. Last time I checked this was common knowledge dude. Being able to grow more durable crops will aid in reducing food scarcity. For example Golden Rice(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice) would stop an average of 1 or 2 million people from going blind in Asia but Golden Rice is a GMO and therefore is bad because even though Genetic modification is single gene modification, selectively breeding crops to attain certain genes (Which can result in true unknown evolutions) is better because Green Peace says so. Know what is a negative example of GMOs? Terminator Seeds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSten18rI9A
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Genetically modified crops are genetically modified to boost production and therefore boost productivity. Making a plant able to grow twice as fast twice as big will increase your profit margin. Last time I checked this was common knowledge dude. Being able to grow more durable crops will aid in reducing food scarcity. For example Golden Rice(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice) would stop an average of 1 or 2 million people from going blind in Asia but Golden Rice is a GMO and therefore is bad because even though Genetic modification is single gene modification, selectively breeding crops to attain certain genes (Which can result in true unknown evolutions) is better because Green Peace says so. Oh thank goodness. I thought you actually had some valid claims there for a moment. False alarm. It's safe to say you know gently caress all about GMOs if you are citing Greenpeace and promoting the work of Norman Borlaug as 'profiteering'
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 23:44
|
|