Sherwood Grant

Recipe: 5 green apples, stalk of celery, 2 large lemon, 5 key limes, 1 large cucumber, thumb ginger, bunch of seeded grapes, cilantro, parsley, mint, basil, and 2 pinches of Celtics sea salt.

Peel lemon, skin cucumber, use handfuls of green leaf vegetation.

How many yall game?
I plan to focus on my Chicagoland audience to make sure you have all the support, knowledge and products to reach realistic goals in health and fitness.

Great conversation right here!

https://youtu.be/im5wb4OM28k?si=xDzbTxStz0eS_sHX

Orthopedic Surgeon Explains 5 Reasons YOU DON'T NEED A CHIROPRACTIC ADJUSTMENT For Your Back Pain Orthopedic surgeon explains 5 reasons you don't need a to treat your back pain today with Dr. Chris Raynor. He also discusses why you...

Addictive and Unhealthy
Foods high in added fats and refined carbs have a lot in common with ci******es
BY Ashley Gearhardt TIMENovember 25, 2021 PRINT

Every year, millions of North Americans try to cut down on ultra-processed foods—industrial formulations that are typically high in added fat, refined carbohydrates, or both. Think cookies, cakes, potato chips, and pizza.

For many, the desire to change what they eat is triggered by concerns about potentially life-threatening health conditions like diabetes and heart disease. The impact of diet on health is not a small problem, according to a study commissioned by the Lancet. The multidisciplinary commission of 37 leading scientists from around the globe identified unhealthy diets as a greater risk to human health than unsafe s*x, alcohol, drug, and to***co use combined.

Many people know that most ultra-processed foods are not healthy. But the goal of cutting down on them can be so challenging that the majority of these attempts fail. Why?

In the Food and Addiction Science and Treatment Lab at the University of Michigan, my colleagues and I are investigating one largely overlooked factor: These ultra-processed foods may be addictive, sharing more in common with to***co products than with whole foods like apples or beans.
Addicted to Ultra-Processed Foods

I’m a clinical psychologist who studies addiction science, obesity, and disordered eating. During my training at Yale University, it became clear to me that many people were showing classic signs of addiction in their relationship with ultra-processed foods—symptoms such as loss of control over consumption, intense cravings, and an inability to cut down in the face of negative consequences.

So my colleagues and I created the Yale Food Addiction Scale. It’s a measure that applies the American Psychiatric Association criteria used to diagnose other addictive disorders to identify people who may be addicted to ultra-processed foods.

Based on our current estimates, 15 percent of Americans meet the threshold for food addiction, which is associated with diet-related disease, obesity, and poorer quality of life. This prevalence is remarkably in line with that of addictions to other legal and accessible substances. For instance, 14 percent of people in the U.S. meet the criteria to be diagnosed with alcohol use disorders.

[In comparison, only around 5 percent of Canadians meet the threshold for food addiction, as determined by the Yale Food Addiction Scale. That finding comes from a 2013 study from Newfoundland’s Memorial University. That rate breaks down to about 6.7 percent for women, versus 3 percent for men.]

It’s clear from our research that people don’t experience this addictive pull from all foods. Ultra-processed foods that have artificially high levels of fat and refined carbohydrates like sugar and white flour are the ones that people eat addictively. For example, chocolate, ice cream, French fries, pizza, and cookies are some of the foods that people find most addictive. Not surprisingly, people report that they’re very unlikely to lose control consuming broccoli, beans, or cucumbers.

But can these ultra-processed foods really be considered addictive? Or are people just overindulging in something they like? To help us answer those questions, my colleagues and I have turned to one of the last big debates in addiction science—whether to***co is addictive.
The Case That You Can Be Addicted to To***co

The idea that to***co was addictive was hotly contested for decades.

In contrast to drugs like alcohol and opioids, to***co products are not intoxicating and allow people to go about their daily lives while using them. To***co products also don’t cause life-threatening withdrawal symptoms, unlike alcohol and opioids, and there’s no need to break the law to access or use to***co.

The largest global to***co industry companies—colloquially grouped together as Big To***co—often highlighted the difference between to***co and “classic” addictive drugs. Increasing doubt about whether to***co was truly addictive could help them avoid culpability for their industry practices and place the blame on consumers for their choice to continue to smoke.

However, in 1988, the Surgeon General officially identified to***co products as addictive. This report directly contradicted Big To***co’s stance that to***co intake is a matter of consumer choice driven by the taste and sensory effect of the products.

The Surgeon General based much of the classification of to***co products as addictive on their ability to trigger strong, often irresistible urges to use, despite a desire to quit and in the face of life-threatening health consequences. Another piece of evidence was the ability of to***co products to rapidly deliver high doses of ni****ne, which made them highly reinforcing—users want to repeat the behavior that gets them more of the drug. The final addiction criterion to***co met was its ability to alter mood—increasing pleasure, reducing negative emotions—because ni****ne affects the brain.

It’s a common misconception that the designation was based on the identification of a specific brain response to to***co. In the 1980s, researchers knew that ni****ne had some impact on the brain. But little was known at that time about exactly how addictive drugs affect the brain. In fact, an objective biological marker of addiction—that is, a specific, measurable brain response that confirms someone is addicted to a substance—still doesn’t exist.

The Surgeon General designating to***co as an addictive product raised the percentage of the public who viewed smoking as an addiction from 37 percent in 1980 to 74 percent in 2002. The scientific case that ci******es were addictive also made it harder for Big To***co to defend its practices.

In 1998, to***co companies lost a legal battle that resulted in them paying billions of dollars to states to cover smoking-related health costs. The court ordered them to release secret documents that demonstrated they covered up the unhealthy and addictive nature of their products. Additionally, the decision placed major restrictions on their ability to market their products, especially to youth.

Since 1980, the use of to***co products in the U.S. has drastically declined—a huge public health accomplishment.
Ultra-Processed Foods Check the Same Boxes

Ultra-processed foods meet all the same criteria that were used to designate to***co as addictive.

To***co and ultra-processed foods alter mood in a similar way by increasing pleasurable feelings and reducing negative ones. The high levels of refined carbohydrates and fat in ultra-processed foods powerfully activate reward systems in the brain.

Ultra-processed foods are highly reinforcing—they can shape your behavior to keep you coming back for more. For example, teachers and parents use ultra-processed foods to reward good behavior in children to increase the likelihood that kids will continue to behave. In rats, researchers have repeatedly found that sweet tastes are more reinforcing than even highly addictive drugs like co***ne.

The high failure rates of diets make it painfully clear that ultra-processed foods can trigger strong, often irresistible urges to use despite a desire to quit. By contrast, nutritious, minimally processed foods such as fruits, vegetables, and legumes don’t meet these criteria for addiction.

Beginning in the 1980s, the amount of unhealthy, ultra-processed foods in the United States exploded. At the same time, the to***co companies Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds were buying up ultra-processed food and beverages companies, including General Foods, Kraft, Nabisco, and Kool-Aid. Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds took their scientific, marketing, and industry knowledge in designing and selling addictive, highly profitable to***co products and applied it to their ultra-processed food portfolios. Although these to***co companies eventually sold their food brands to international food and beverage conglomerates in the 2000s, they had already left their stamp on the modern food environment.

The current societal narrative around the ultra-processed foods that dominate today’s food environment is that people who struggle to eat them in moderation—the majority of North Americans—are just weak-willed. It’s the same story used to explain why people couldn’t quit smoking. It ignores the fact that the industry that created ci******es also developed and marketed many of these foods, deliberately working to enhance craveability and create heavy users.

The addictive nature of these ultra-processed foods undermines consumers’ free will and health in the service of profits. Yet, there’s an important difference between to***co and ultra-processed foods. We all have to eat. No one can opt out.

Just as in the case of to***co products, it will likely take industry regulation to chip away at the popularity of ultra-processed foods and the health problems that come with them.

Ashley Gearhardt is an associate professor of psychology at the University of Michigan. This article was first published on The Conversation.

I bet you didn't know I invented this massage tool 7 years ago to address back pain.