.jpeg)
Increasingly these days, we are coming across the term 'food addiction' as an excuse for overeating. However, Professor John Blundell from the Institute of Psychological Sciences at the University of Leeds warns against using the term too loosely.
Food addiction was originally associated with chemical dependence, such as on drugs, and then extended to overeating. The concept has become the clinical explanation for the obesity epidemic, but Professor Blundell stresses that using the term can lead to the "medicalization" of common phenomena and question social behavior.
The basis for food addiction is based on experimental data, observations and beliefs. This simplification of complex behaviors carries certain risks and harms a proper understanding of one's own behavior.
The data does not identify specific characteristics of foods or consumption patterns that can cause addiction. This is different from drug addiction, where the effects of substances are studied in detail.
Animal experiments indicate changes in the brain with a high-sugar diet, and human brain scans confirm the activation of reward centers when eating sweets.
Sweet foods increase feelings of reward, and the craving for carbohydrate foods is innate to meet the brain's metabolic needs.
However, science still has a lot of work to do to claim whether certain foods are addictive.
The danger is that using food addiction as the sole explanation for obesity can lead to a deflection of personal responsibility. Many may use the concept as an excuse for their gluttony, believing that they "can't help it".
The scientific rationale for "food addiction" leaves many unanswered questions. Compulsive overeating, although it exists, is extremely rare and does not explain the overall rise in obesity.
A more in-depth analysis of the concept of "food addiction" is needed to take a more objective look at causes and behaviors. This will help form informed conclusions based on real data and facts.
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
