• HEALTH & RECOVERY
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules Thread Directory 1 Thread Directory 2
    Mindfulness Links Addiction & Mind
    Sober Living Partner Program (SLiPP)
  • H&R Moderators: VerbalTruist

Physically Addictive Foods

Supposedly, milk/cheese contains substances that are 1/10th the strength of morphine. Barnard speculates that this is to keep baby calves from straying from the mother during the vital early years of their lives when they need their fix of milk to gain significant amounts of weight and tissue building.
 
^ Well there is the known link of oxytocin/prolactin being released in the mother's brain upon lactation. In fact, there's a whole article about it in the latest Scientific American magazine.

I would not be surprised if there was something in the mother's milk that accomplished the reciprocal bonding in the offspring.
 
1. I have not seen evidence that caseomorphine crosses the BBB in "normal" individuals (there may be a difference in those with autism).
2. Pretty much anything pleasant will elicit a dopamine release in the VTA. Life is a drug. That being said, it's interesting that our response to food is mediated via endogenous opioids.

ebola
 
Morphine morphine morphine. Opiates, morphine, morphine. Quasi-morphones? Opiates. Opiate-releasing. Opiates opiates. Everything is related to smack, which we ALL CONDEMN, RIGHT? That makes everything I say completely unimpeachable.

Break away forever from cheese, chocolate and soda (culled from an ever-expanding list developed by a North Dakotan wraith). If the camera adds 10 pounds, this guy could use all ten.

"What I'm suggesting is that the mother-infant bond has a biological basis in drug-like compounds"

No shit. His long winded "expose" of too much sugar in the North American diet using opiate terminology as it's primary scare factor and bugaboo is shite. I tried but I couldn't get beyond 10 minutes, no matter how many plebian jokes he threw in to assuage the afternoon mom audience. Common sense must be sponsored by whole foods and vegi-whatever?

This is not science.
 
^ not science? he's conducted research studies on his topics.. and please use scholar.google.com to help you w/ your claims.
 
I'm not going to be an asshole about it like some posters, but I'll say that I'm not convinced. The good doctor changes the subject from "sugars as opioids" just as he ought to be explaining exactly *how* they're opioids.

As for the anti dairy attitude. Ya whatever nigga. I'll stop eating dairy when I encounter acute health problems that stopping will remedy. Right now, I'm healthy, and there's a fresh chunk of French Feta in the fridge. I'm not throwing it out. ;) Everybody is healthier when they eat a vegan diet, but you don't have to be vegan to be healthy. A vegan diet shares something in common with any healthy diet, it requires ballance in the food you eat, and it required you to be mindful of what you're eating. Notice the vegan diet doesn't let you eat nothing but taffy and potato chips. Just like a sensible non-vegan diet wouldn't allow you a steak the size of your face once a day.
 
>>Everybody is healthier when they eat a vegan diet>>

hmmm...I disagree. I think the healthiest diet possible would include fish.

>>The good doctor changes the subject from "sugars as opioids" just as he ought to be explaining exactly *how* they're opioids.>>

To his credit, he wasn't arguing that sugars ARE opioids. Rather, he was arguing that our response to sweet tastes is mediated by the release of endogenous opioids.

ebola
 
I never once heard him mention endogenous opioids. Besides, even if that was the thrust of his arguement, it still isn't really casting sugars in a negative light. You can have an endogenous response to anything. Its called classical conditioning.

For further reading (i'm afraid i can't find a link, sorry) there was a study done where a control group fed their babies an unsweetened formula, and the experimental group fed their babies a sweetened formula (i didn't know such things existed, but they do). Years later, the experimental group children were showing a much greater tendencey towards childhood obesity, as well as pickeyness at the dinner table.

Dr Who'shisface, is right, however, that we eat waaaaay more sugar, refined sugar in particular, than we ought to. It's a cultural problem, as is the amount of saturated fat we eat. I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon and say "people who eat meat are the ones who get cancer" or "if you like candy, you're pretty much a socially acceptable junkie".
 
^ not science? he's conducted research studies on his topics.. and please use scholar.google.com to help you w/ your claims.

White supremacists and flat earthers also conduct "research studies". Are they therefore beyond reproach?
Don't like my arguments? Think I'm an asshole? (and resist calling me out by name like some posters?) Well then let's talk point by point.
If Monsieur Atlas can be picky with his social situation (like the eaters in his scientific sample, yet uncited) and yet use the word "nigga" - hell, who am I to understand where aggression comes from.
 
agreed in one way, that we're on the same side. I don't think that by being argumentative that I am an asshole.

or a "douche".
 
Last edited:
No, its not that you're being arguementative, its that you're trying to win by putting down the other side for being a wraith, being boring, speaking to a captive audience, and being a fear monger.

The fear monger claim might be useful, but I'd ask you to actually take the time to back it up, rather than just name-calling. As for how interesting he is, or how sexy you find him, or who is sitting in front of him: it doesn't really add much to the discussion, does it?
 
I'm trying to "win" something?

If I'm not mistaken I have been called a douche and an asshole out of the side of your mouth - and you demand clarity?
 
you're not an asshole because you're unclear. You're an asshole because you're lazy. Your statements were not valid arguements. You're the guy who walks into a room, and starts talking about things that have no bearing on the conversation at hand.

And if you aren't trying to "win" an arguement, that is, convince people who hold a contrary belief to adopt your belief, then you aren't debating, you're trolling.
 
i wish i could mod this forum.
anyway...i have to admit i only watched 10 minutes of the video (what an inefficient way to absorb information)...but i swear the d00d said that sugar elicits the release of the brain's own opiate-like compounds (i.e. endogenous opioids).

ebola
 
And if you aren't trying to "win" an arguement, that is, convince people who hold a contrary belief to adopt your belief, then you aren't debating, you're trolling.

Or perhaps I'm posting on a message board where the scholastic definition of "debate" is a bit more fluid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top