Restricting sugary foods could lead to overeating, according to a new rat study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    Many people try to lose weight by going on a diet. But this new research, funded by the National Institutes of Health, suggests that restricting certain foods for a set time period in the manner of dieting could cause withdrawal symptoms similar to those associated with drug abuse and increase cravings for those foods. This could lead periodic dieters to gorge on forbidden foods when they have the opportunity, the researchers suggest.

Oy frickin' vey.

The implication of this seems to be, don't ever stop eating this stuff, because it'll go bad for you when you come back, and you will.

I am not, by any stretch, the only voice supporting recognition for food addiction. But since I'm the only writer here, it might sometimes seem that way.

A proposal to raise taxes by two cents per ounce on sweetened bottled and canned soda won't make it out of committee.

I would rather report that it was done for reasons of public health, but it appears the Centennial State is merely trying to find tax revenue in a down economy. [link to story]

I wonder how those tax breaks got in there in the first place. To help the disadvantaged candy and soda businesses compete against the entrenched forces of broccoli?

I have also been late in addressing the recent announcement of pending changes in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association that regard eating behaviors. The DSM is in its fourth edition; the fifth is due in 2013.

You may know that the only substance abuse disorders regarding food in the DSM IV are anorexia and bulimia. There is another category, ED-NOS, which stands for eating disorders not otherwise specified, but they are mostly A/B-related, with exceptions.

I'm a little late to the party, but wanted to acknowledge Michelle Obama's joining the fight against childhood obesity, which she did last week. Her ability to focus attention on an issue is unique, and her focus on obesity is welcome. (I don't limit my own focus by age, but I don't mind if someone else does.)

Georgie and I have been watching, and enjoying, "Men of a Certain Age," the Ray Romano/Andre Braugher/Scott Bakula show on TNT. I think they have three believable characters, none of them perfect by any means, but textured, sympathetic, and believable.

But a plotline in the most recent episode stumbled a bit, on a topic I think worth raising.

Few sweeping statements can be applied broadly, but here's one I'm willing to stand by: The first action any problem eater should consider is to take responsbility for what he or she eats, and look for support and help to change.That's what I did, albeit haltingly and irascibly, and I'm maintaining a 150-pound-plus weight loss for almost 20 years.

I met up with a few new comrades at the Promising Practices in Food Addiction Recovery conference last weekend in Houston. One of them is Meredith Terpeluk, who works with problem eaters in South Bend, Ind. I expect I'll refer to her at least occasionally, by virture of her blog at reachcorewellness.wordpress.com.

The Department of Defense is considering either supplementing or fortifying the rations of all active service personnel with EPA and DHA omega 3 fatty acids to enhance stress resilience and general wellness. [They would expect to] improve military performance, cut hospital bills and speed recovery from traumatic brain injuries.

 

This comes from nutraingredients-usa.com, which views this as a business story; its lead paragraph talks about a huge market opening for those substances if the military follows through.  And, of course, it is; nutrition is inextricably linked to the marketplace, which is our way of life but not a way to safe way to life.