Research Shows That Cocaine and Heroin Are Less Addictive Than Oreos

  On 10/17/2013 at 5:23 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 10/17/2013 at 5:19 PM, azatoth said:

 

  On 10/17/2013 at 5:09 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 10/17/2013 at 5:07 AM, essines said:

 

  On 10/16/2013 at 9:31 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

People OD on Oreos(sugar) all the time. Its called Diabetes. Diabetes kills people, and makes them a burden to society. Some have to have their limbs removed due to the side effects.

 

 

 

dude just shut up.

 

 

Am I wrong?

 

Not all people get diabetes because of obesity. And by your argument, everyone who is not 100% fit is a burden to society. So I think it qualifies as a shut up.

 

 

Yes but improper diet and lifestyle is what leads to the diabetes that is preventable. And no that isn't what my argument is saying. You are merely inferring that.

 

And that lifestyle is part of a bigger issue, mainly it being a larger socio-economic problem. I am sure that most would gladly eat healthier and live better if they could afford it and have the time to do so. Thanks to huge subsidies the cheapest alternatives for many are various products of refined sugars and other unhealthy options.

Our physiology hasn't caught up with all the modern conveniences. Our hardware are still primed to a situation where food is scarce and you need to move to get it. That's why eating sugar is so rewarding. It's high in energy and when coming across it we tend to over consume since back in the day it was not certain when the next time we got access to it. That's why this result is not at all surprising.

  On 10/17/2013 at 5:37 PM, luke viia said:

so did anyone else read about the experiment they performed here?

 

and if so, are you surprised that rats prefer heroin to saline solution, and oreos to rice cakes?

Not suprised, of course not. But that's the only part of the experiment, and it is really only a prep for the second part.

You're leaving out the major detail...

They used immunohistochemistry to measure the expression of a protein called c-Fos, a marker of neuronal activation, in the nucleus accumbens, or the brain’s “pleasure center.”

“It basically tells us how many cells were turned on in a specific region of the brain in response to the drugs or Oreos,” said Schroeder.

They found that the Oreos activated significantly more neurons than cocaine or morphine.

Also, putting heroin on one side of a cage and Orios at the other end wouldn't be that great of an experiment. Whereas this experiment literally tests the effects of each thing on the reward center of the brain. I don't possibly see how you could get more rigorous then that...?

yeah that makes it a bit better i suppose... but is there a connection between number-of-neurons-activated-as-marked-by-c-Fos and addiction? I honestly have no idea. from what i understand sugar and fat would be likely to activate more "pleasure centers" than a drug just acting on opioid receptors, for reasons azatoth started getting into

xxx?

also what's so bad about a study that gives rats a choice between oreos and drugs? I can't think of a more direct way to test which is more pleasurable, and which is more addictive (just take one away and see if they still spend time waiting for it. makes way more sense than seeing rats avoid the rice cake side of the maze and concluding "oreos are as addictive as heroin")

i dunno

  On 10/16/2013 at 10:10 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 10/16/2013 at 10:08 PM, westhead said:

 

  On 10/16/2013 at 10:04 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 10/16/2013 at 10:02 PM, westhead said:

I lack confidence, so I eat an Oreo before going into social situations. I know it's silly but I feel panicky if I don't have Oreos ready to eat when I'm out now.

After a while the effect of the Oreos started to wear off, so I ate them more often. Now I just eat Oreos to feel normal.

Comfort eating is a thing.

Yes, but does it make you steal from your parents? Does it make you sell your arse for cash? It's about much more than self inflicted physical damage.

 

 

Nothing makes you do anything. You choose to do those things.

 

You don't think people with unhealthy diets and lifestyles create a burden for society?

 

God man, trolling is bad enough but humourless, po-faced trolling is the worst. Chronic illness is not a "burden".

fuckin oreos

  On 10/17/2013 at 11:11 PM, poblequadrat said:

 

  On 10/16/2013 at 10:10 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 10/16/2013 at 10:08 PM, westhead said:

 

  On 10/16/2013 at 10:04 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 10/16/2013 at 10:02 PM, westhead said:

I lack confidence, so I eat an Oreo before going into social situations. I know it's silly but I feel panicky if I don't have Oreos ready to eat when I'm out now.

After a while the effect of the Oreos started to wear off, so I ate them more often. Now I just eat Oreos to feel normal.

Comfort eating is a thing.

Yes, but does it make you steal from your parents? Does it make you sell your arse for cash? It's about much more than self inflicted physical damage.

 

 

Nothing makes you do anything. You choose to do those things.

 

You don't think people with unhealthy diets and lifestyles create a burden for society?

 

 

God man, trolling is bad enough but humourless, po-faced trolling is the worst. Chronic illness is not a "burden".

 

Many people who are ill are not capable of taking care of themselves, in some capacity or another, which means someone else has to carry their weight so to speak. This is simple logic. Right, wrong, or indifferent.

  On 10/17/2013 at 11:08 PM, luke viia said:

yeah that makes it a bit better i suppose... but is there a connection between number-of-neurons-activated-as-marked-by-c-Fos and addiction? I honestly have no idea. from what i understand sugar and fat would be likely to activate more "pleasure centers" than a drug just acting on opioid receptors, for reasons azatoth started getting into

 

xxx?

 

also what's so bad about a study that gives rats a choice between oreos and drugs? I can't think of a more direct way to test which is more pleasurable, and which is more addictive (just take one away and see if they still spend time waiting for it. makes way more sense than seeing rats avoid the rice cake side of the maze and concluding "oreos are as addictive as heroin")

 

i dunno

1) Addiction happens in the reward center of the brain. The reward center works by rewarding certain behaviors--with dopamine and other fun stuff--which causes the subject to want to repeat the behavior. So evaluating a substance's effect on the reward center is the absolute best way to study addiction IMO.

2) The 'Oreos in one corner, heroin in the other' experiment wouldn't be a pure indicator of addiction. For instance, there could be non-addiction reasons for a lab-rat to prefer one over the other, and the lab would first have to demonstrate that addiction would always trump these other factors. For instance, Oreos are food and heroin is a pain-killer so there could be reasons related to food or pain that cause a lab-rat to prefer one over the other. it's kinda like apples and oranges, except more like apples and advil.

Point one didn't answer my first question re: cFos and point 2 is exactly why I think this research is stretching its claims about addiction.

It's interesting research and sugar and fat are horrible drugs in excess, I just feel like this claim about addiction is over the top in its wording, that's all. We can disagree. <3

  Quote

 

The results revealed that rats given the choice between Oreos and rice cakes spent as much time on the Oreo side of the maze as the rats given the choice between cocaine and saline did on the cocaine side. But that doesn't mean the Oreos were as addictive.

"The study performed cannot determine whether Oreos are as addictive as cocaine," said Edythe London, a researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, who uses brain imaging to study the neural basis of drug cravings. "That question is best addressed in a comparison of how hard a rat will work for Oreos versus cocaine — how many times a rat will press a lever to get one or the other."

The students also measured the expression of a protein called c-Fos, which indicates brain cell activity, in the nucleus accumbens of rats exposed to Oreos or cocaine. This brain region is important for pleasure and positive reinforcement and is involved in addiction because of the pleasurable feelings brought on by drugs.

The rats' nucleus accumbens activated more strongly with the stimulus of Oreos than the stimulus of cocaine, but those findings don't prove anything about the addictive potential of the cookies, either, London told LiveScience.

The study is "consistent with the fact that Oreos produce pleasure — but we knew that," London said.

http://www.livescience.com/40488-oreos-addictive-cocaine.html

  On 10/16/2013 at 9:21 PM, Friendly Foil said:

Of course I'm not being sarcastic.

This post is so not sarcastic.

Sorry for the lengthy quote here, but I stumbled upon an interesting post by cognitive neuroscientist Tom Stafford on the Mind Hacks blog:

  Quote

 

We’re told studies have proven that drugs like heroin and cocaine instantly hook a user. But it isn’t that simple – little-known experiments over 30 years ago tell a very different tale.

Drugs are scary. The words “heroin” and “cocaine” make people flinch. It’s not just the associations with crime and harmful health effects, but also the notion that these substances can undermine the identities of those who take them. One try, we’re told, is enough to get us hooked. This, it would seem, is confirmed by animal experiments.

Many studies have shown rats and monkeys will neglect food and drink in favour of pressing levers to obtain morphine (the lab form of heroin). With the right experimental set up, some rats will self-administer drugs until they die. At first glance it looks like a simple case of the laboratory animals losing control of their actions to the drugs they need. It’s easy to see in this a frightening scientific fable about the power of these drugs to rob us of our free will.

But there is more to the real scientific story, even if it isn’t widely talked about. The results of a set of little-known experiments carried out more than 30 years ago paint a very different picture, and illustrate how easy it is for neuroscience to be twisted to pander to popular anxieties. The vital missing evidence is a series of studies carried out in the late 1970s in what has become known as “Rat Park”. Canadian psychologist Bruce Alexander, at the Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, suspected that the preference of rats to morphine over water in previous experiments might be affected by their housing conditions.

To test his hypothesis he built an enclosure measuring 95 square feet (8.8 square metres) for a colony of rats of both sexes. Not only was this around 200 times the area of standard rodent cages, but Rat Park had decorated walls, running wheels and nesting areas. Inhabitants had access to a plentiful supply of food, perhaps most importantly the rats lived in it together.

Rats are smart, social creatures. Living in a small cage on their own is a form of sensory deprivation. Rat Park was what neuroscientists would call an enriched environment, or – if you prefer to look at it this way – a non-deprived one. In Alexander’s tests, rats reared in cages drank as much as 20 times more morphine than those brought up in Rat Park.

Inhabitants of Rat Park could be induced to drink more of the morphine if it was mixed with sugar, but a control experiment suggested that this was because they liked the sugar, rather than because the sugar allowed them to ignore the bitter taste of the morphine long enough to get addicted. When naloxone, which blocks the effects of morphine, was added to the morphine-sugar mix, the rats’ consumption didn’t drop. In fact, their consumption increased, suggesting they were actively trying to avoid the effects of morphine, but would put up with it in order to get sugar.

‘Woefully incomplete’

The results are catastrophic for the simplistic idea that one use of a drug inevitably hooks the user by rewiring their brain. When Alexander’s rats were given something better to do than sit in a bare cage they turned their noses up at morphine because they preferred playing with their friends and exploring their surroundings to getting high.

Further support for his emphasis on living conditions came from another set of tests his team carried out in which rats brought up in ordinary cages were forced to consume morphine for 57 days in a row. If anything should create the conditions for chemical rewiring of their brains, this should be it. But once these rats were moved to Rat Park they chose water over morphine when given the choice, although they did exhibit some minor withdrawal symptoms.

You can read more about Rat Park in the original scientific report. A good summary is in this comic by Stuart McMillen. The results aren’t widely cited in the scientific literature, and the studies were discontinued after a few years because they couldn’t attract funding. There have been criticisms of the study’s design and the few attempts that have been made to replicate the results have been mixed.

Nonetheless the research does demonstrate that the standard “exposure model” of addiction is woefully incomplete. It takes far more than the simple experience of a drug – even drugs as powerful as cocaine and heroin – to make you an addict. The alternatives you have to drug use, which will be influenced by your social and physical environment, play important roles as well as the brute pleasure delivered via the chemical assault on your reward circuits.

For a psychologist like me it suggests that even addictions can be thought of using the same theories we use to think about other choices, there isn’t a special exception for drug-related choices. Rat Park also suggests that when stories about the effects of drugs on the brain are promoted to the neglect of the discussion of the personal and social contexts of addiction, science is servicing our collective anxieties rather than informing us.

Relevant?

very interesting!

Most people I've known who have been heroin addicts maintain their habit out of fear of withdrawals and loss of their stash. They chase that first shot.

Most people I've known who have been cocaine addicts maintain their habit because they get addicted to the lifestyle and the feeling of warped sense of self confidence. They are always chasing that last 'super good gram' from whos-his-face.

Oreos made my poop turn black once - when I ate a box of them in one night.. I then stopped eating them for years and constantly think of that turd looked like an oreo cookie every time I see Oreos...

I don't really know where I'm going with this, but I've never seen a fatty fence TV's, rob people, throw up, punch their wife or start having shooting pain in their body from not getting their cookies. Nice try science, but you forgot, that humans abuse drugs to mask feelings or to cope with things only relevant to humans. Rats/Mice just want food.

  On 10/18/2013 at 7:45 AM, Audioblysk said:

 

I don't really know where I'm going with this, but I've never seen a fatty fence TV's, rob people, throw up, punch their wife or start having shooting pain in their body from not getting their cookies. Nice try science, but you forgot, that humans abuse drugs to mask feelings or to cope with things only relevant to humans. Rats/Mice just want food.

Once again, comparing real life behavior is not very scientific since factors like price, legality and stigma are so skewed. If junk food was banned and the price was increased 100x then we'd have something to compare.

I think we need to define the terms more clearly. What IS addiction? How can you tell that someone is 'addicted' to something? How many people are addicted to sugar, and how can we tell? Is there a difference between weakness, avoidance, psychological dependency, and addiction? How do you know this? How should we respond to those who are addicted?

  On 10/18/2013 at 4:53 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 10/18/2013 at 7:45 AM, Audioblysk said:

 

I don't really know where I'm going with this, but I've never seen a fatty fence TV's, rob people, throw up, punch their wife or start having shooting pain in their body from not getting their cookies. Nice try science, but you forgot, that humans abuse drugs to mask feelings or to cope with things only relevant to humans. Rats/Mice just want food.

Once again, comparing real life behavior is not very scientific since factors like price, legality and stigma are so skewed. If junk food was banned and the price was increased 100x then we'd have something to compare.

 

and there it is.

Living in the United States, I see on a daily basis people who are really, REALLY, R E A L L Y .. fat. They look fucking miserable going from fix to fix, hopelessly clutching their diet sodas and energy drinks, while squeezing past people on the Metro bus. I don't think that they WANT to be unhealthy. It's just common sense. Processed sugary fatty foods are addictive. Just HOW addictive? Who the fuck knows? Enough to kill millions of people a year. That's all I need to know. It's at the very least, comparable to narcotics.

  On 10/18/2013 at 5:26 PM, acroyear said:

Processed sugary fatty foods are addictive.

What does addictive mean?

  On 10/18/2013 at 5:26 PM, acroyear said:

Living in the United States, I see on a daily basis people who are really, REALLY, R E A L L Y .. fat. They look fucking miserable going from fix to fix, hopelessly clutching their diet sodas and energy drinks, while squeezing past people on the Metro bus. I don't think that they WANT to be unhealthy. It's just common sense. Processed sugary fatty foods are addictive. Just HOW addictive? Who the fuck knows? Enough to kill millions of people a year. That's all I need to know. It's at the very least, comparable to narcotics.

I have a friend who drinks about 4 liters of Mountain Dew per day and to anyone who says that sugar is not addictive, you should see this person when they don't get their Mountain Dew. They are quite visibly in withdrawal: sweating, headaches, stomache pain, irritabilility, lack of appetite, etc.

It's a serious question, I'm not trying to make a point

  On 10/18/2013 at 5:34 PM, hoggy said:

 

  On 10/18/2013 at 5:26 PM, acroyear said:

Processed sugary fatty foods are addictive.

What does addictive mean?

 

Substance dependence, or addiction, as defined by the DSM-IV, is indicated by the presence of three or more of the criteria listed below in the last 12 months. Note that all but the first two criteria reflect some form of loss of control over the use of or effects of the drug.

• Tolerance: Does the patient tend to need more of the drug over time to get the same effect?
• Withdrawal symptoms: Does the patient experience withdrawal symptoms when he or she does not use the drug?
• Continued use of drug despite harm: Is the patient experiencing physical or psychological harm from the drug?
• Loss of control: Does the patient take the drug in larger amounts, or for longer than planned?
• Attempts to cut down: Has the patient made a conscious, but unsuccessful, effort to reduce his or her drug use?
• Salience: Does the patient spend significant time obtaining or thinking about the drug, or recovering from its effects?
• Reduced involvement: Has the patient given up or reduced his or her involvement in social, occupational or recreational activities due to the drug?

Substance abuse, as defined by the DSM-IV, involves a maladaptive pattern of substance use resulting in significant negative physical, social, interpersonal or legal consequences. Unlike substance dependence, the criteria for abuse do not include tolerance, withdrawal or a pattern of compulsive or uncontrolled use.

Off the top of my head I'd say addiction is when you can't stop doing something, regardless of the consequences.

  On 10/18/2013 at 4:53 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 10/18/2013 at 7:45 AM, Audioblysk said:

 

I don't really know where I'm going with this, but I've never seen a fatty fence TV's, rob people, throw up, punch their wife or start having shooting pain in their body from not getting their cookies. Nice try science, but you forgot, that humans abuse drugs to mask feelings or to cope with things only relevant to humans. Rats/Mice just want food.

Once again, comparing real life behavior is not very scientific since factors like price, legality and stigma are so skewed. If junk food was banned and the price was increased 100x then we'd have something to compare.

 

How about the job performance of somebody who eats two entire packages of Oreos a day whilst on the job versus somebody who shoots up heroin twice a day whilst on the job?

You can do calculus homework while you're eating oreos. And afterward. Can you say the same about heroin?

Anyone who thinks this study has validity has never been around real, fucked up, 'aardcore heroin addicts IMO. I watched a handful of friends die due to their addiction, not in the matter of a few decades, but in the matter of a few years. It's comparing apples to oranges... and due to my personal experiences, somewhat insulting to the friends I know six feet under because of their addictions as maybe I coulda weaned them onto oreos by this logic and they'd still have a few decades of swelling like a fat balloon, but being alive? I dunno.

  On 10/18/2013 at 5:38 PM, cult fiction said:

 

  On 10/18/2013 at 4:53 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 10/18/2013 at 7:45 AM, Audioblysk said:

 

I don't really know where I'm going with this, but I've never seen a fatty fence TV's, rob people, throw up, punch their wife or start having shooting pain in their body from not getting their cookies. Nice try science, but you forgot, that humans abuse drugs to mask feelings or to cope with things only relevant to humans. Rats/Mice just want food.

Once again, comparing real life behavior is not very scientific since factors like price, legality and stigma are so skewed. If junk food was banned and the price was increased 100x then we'd have something to compare.

 

 

How about the job performance of somebody who eats two entire packages of Oreos a day whilst on the job versus somebody who shoots up heroin twice a day whilst on the job?

You can do calculus homework while you're eating oreos. And afterward. Can you say the same about heroin?

 

I think your knowledge of heroin comes from D.A.R.E. lectures or something. I think you think someone just falls asleep after shooting heroin or they are completely incapacitated or something.

Many people can do many things on heroin. There are many high-functioning addicts in this world.

  On 10/18/2013 at 5:39 PM, Audioblysk said:

Anyone who thinks this study has validity has never been around real, fucked up, 'aardcore heroin addicts IMO. I watched a handful of friends die due to their addiction, not in the matter of a few decades, but in the matter of a few years. It's comparing apples to oranges... and due to my personal experiences, somewhat insulting to the friends I know six feet under because of their addictions as maybe I coulda weaned them onto oreos by this logic and they'd still have a few decades of swelling like a fat balloon, but being alive? I dunno.

I've been around many real fucked up 'aardcore heroin addicts and I think the study has validity.