Why do we like junk food?

[valenzuela]

If junk food is bad for us why do we like it? Has our body simply not adapted to our new lifestyle?

[Rduke55]

We've evolved to really like fat, sugar, etc.
Hard to change that, especially in such a short time.

Another thing to consider is that problems caused by a crappy diet and obesity typically don't kill you until after you are of a reproductive age.

[Shoe Lace]

I think we evolved into tying in emotion to food consumption. My personal belief is that the media is mostly to blame.

In your typical food commercial you usually see someone or a family having a great time. "Well if that person/family if having a good time I guess I'll like it to -- it must be good".

[DerrtySlime]

im addicted to chocolate i eat like 2 a day but here is what i heard.

our brains love the feeling that chocolate does to our body so it craves it. we basically crave the neurological feel.

[Shoe Lace]

If I decide to eat chocolate I ate it because I'm itching for something sweet and it happens to taste quite good on a very basic level (my tastebuds send "this is good" signals to my brain).

Similar to when my grandmother used to make home made souvlakis. They tasted "good". The feelings I felt after eating both are not different. Although I'd usually have deadly gas after eating souvlakis, but that's besides the point.

Chocolate is a prime example of the media in action. Supposedly yes, it is proven to contain certain chemicals that may change how you feel in a very short time frame.

Media: "Wow this is a great idea, we can control how people feel, in both a positive and negative way. Let's tie chocolate into feeling warm/relaxed/etc instead of the negatives, and push it as hard as we can".

If the media showed severly overweight adults and children looking at a piece of chocolate cake with tears in their eyes, then suddenly went into a rage and attacked the cake with their mouth -- eating it in less than 5 seconds, while crying and sobbing. Then for good measure, showed a slideshow of random disgusting medical images at the end, can you say with 100% confidence chocolate would be as popular as it is today?
[Note: assume you never saw a positive chocolate ad in your entire life, and commercials similar to the above were being ran for the last 50 years]

[Phil153]

While our bodies are definitely tuned for fat and sugar, a lot of it is conditioning too. Eat a delicious and wholesome diet for a few weeks and junk food will become disgusting. Get used to natural juices and sodas become grossly over sweet.

[CORed]

For most of the history of humankind, we have lived on the edge of starvation. This means that eating any kind of high calorie food when the opportunity presented itself was a survival enhancing move. Also, putting on a nice load of fat provides you with "famine insurance". Constantly pigging out on high-calorie, but otherwise now nutrient food isn't good for you, but that's not an opportunity most people had, until fairly recently in human history.

Another thing to consider: Longevity isn't really something that's selected for all that strongly. If you live long enough to have some kids and raise them to adulthood (40-60), there's not much benefit, evolutionarily speaking to living any longer.

[gull]

Junk food is good for us. Anything, even water, is bad for us in excess. Since people always have a problem with excess of junk food, we call it bad.

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
Junk food is good for us. Anything, even water, is bad for us in excess. Since people always have a problem with excess of junk food, we call it bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is an intresting theory.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
While our bodies are definitely tuned for fat and sugar, a lot of it is conditioning too. Eat a delicious and wholesome diet for a few weeks and junk food will become disgusting. Get used to natural juices and sodas become grossly over sweet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed completely. Junkfood addiction has so much to do with convinience. Junk food is very cheap and requires little preparation. Add in some saturated fat and sky high sodium and it will trick a few of your senses into thinking you're eating something delicious. We like junk food simply because we are very quick to proclaim, "I'm too busy to cook for myself" and fast food is one of the cheapest cop outs in this respect.

[Turn Prophet]

Stone age bodies living in a modern world ftw.

[PLOlover]

imo a lot has to do with flavor enhancers and stuff which they put in processed food to "trick" you into thinking it tastes good so you eat more so you buy more.

[gull]

Calories, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium are all ESSENTIAL to function. It's natural that we like them.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
"trick" you into thinking it tastes good

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you can trick someone into thinking something tastes good. It tastes good or it doesn't.

[Liofa]

[ QUOTE ]
For most of the history of humankind, we have lived on the edge of starvation. This means that eating any kind of high calorie food when the opportunity presented itself was a survival enhancing move. Also, putting on a nice load of fat provides you with "famine insurance". Constantly pigging out on high-calorie, but otherwise now nutrient food isn't good for you, but that's not an opportunity most people had, until fairly recently in human history.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe you're talking about a time in human history when small groups of people had to hunt for their own food everyday. Never think that the entirety of humanity was near starvation. It isn't true. Small groups of hunter/gatherers may have starved to death, but the human race has never been in danger of extinction via starvation.

Chocolate is good because it releases endorphins into the blood which makes you feel pleased. The same result occurs when you defecate and when you have sexual release. As to why sugary food/fast food tastes good, I've no idea, other than that sugar is tasty.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
"trick" you into thinking it tastes good



I don't think you can trick someone into thinking something tastes good. It tastes good or it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

not true at all, MSG and other stuff works by stimulating the taste bud receptors, thats what I mean by "tricking". thats also why they put a bunch of it in processed foods, so they taste better.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe you're talking about a time in human history when small groups of people had to hunt for their own food everyday. Never think that the entirety of humanity was near starvation. It isn't true. Small groups of hunter/gatherers may have starved to death, but the human race has never been in danger of extinction via starvation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think dna analysis has shown that all humans descend from an "eve" or small group of women 50k years ago or so, so it seems to me the human race must have been on the verge of extinction at that point for all of us to be descended from 1-10 or 1-20 females or whatever.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"not true at all, MSG and other stuff works by stimulating the taste bud receptors, thats what I mean by "tricking". thats also why they put a bunch of it in processed foods, so they taste better.

By your logic you trick people into thinking cereal tastes good by adding sugar or strawberries to it...

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
"trick" you into thinking it tastes good



I don't think you can trick someone into thinking something tastes good. It tastes good or it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

not true at all, MSG and other stuff works by stimulating the taste bud receptors, thats what I mean by "tricking". thats also why they put a bunch of it in processed foods, so they taste better.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it still tastes good. What you are talking about is something other than "taste"

[gull]

I think this is what he means by tricking:

Taste evolved to help us select food. Edible stuff tastes good. Inedible stuff tastes bad. High-calorie food tastes REALLY good. These are helpful tasting traits.

However, when something is genuinely bad for us but has been engineered to make the taste buds like it, that's going against the evolved purpose of the taste buds. The purpose of taste buds is to select good food.

The taste buds are being "tricked" when they make bad food taste good. If I picked up a tasty shoe and took a bite out of it, my taste buds would be "tricked," because the shoe is not good for me. It SHOULD taste bad.

(correct me if I'm wrong, goodcallyouwin)

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
"not true at all, MSG and other stuff works by stimulating the taste bud receptors, thats what I mean by "tricking". thats also why they put a bunch of it in processed foods, so they taste better.

By your logic you trick people into thinking cereal tastes good by adding sugar or strawberries to it...

[/ QUOTE ]

well just look it up, I mean certain chemicals trigger gluatmine receptors or something. they add these chemicals to tasteless food so they taste good in the same way that if you took cocaine while you donked off your bankroll you would really enjoy it and get a really "good" feeling from losing.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For most of the history of humankind, we have lived on the edge of starvation. This means that eating any kind of high calorie food when the opportunity presented itself was a survival enhancing move. Also, putting on a nice load of fat provides you with "famine insurance". Constantly pigging out on high-calorie, but otherwise now nutrient food isn't good for you, but that's not an opportunity most people had, until fairly recently in human history.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe you're talking about a time in human history when small groups of people had to hunt for their own food everyday. Never think that the entirety of humanity was near starvation. It isn't true. Small groups of hunter/gatherers may have starved to death, but the human race has never been in danger of extinction via starvation.

Chocolate is good because it releases endorphins into the blood which makes you feel pleased. The same result occurs when you defecate and when you have sexual release. As to why sugary food/fast food tastes good, I've no idea, other than that sugar is tasty.

[/ QUOTE ]


You are going in circles. You are just asking the same question the OP is, but putting in a tiny bit of extra info as if you are answering it. It is entirely irrelevant whether the ENTIRE species was ever on the verge of starvation or not. The species evolved for the most part in an environment when MOST of its individuals went through periods of starvation. This is probably how most humans died. The quote you are taking issue with answers the questions you failed to answer at the end of your post.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
"trick" you into thinking it tastes good



I don't think you can trick someone into thinking something tastes good. It tastes good or it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

not true at all, MSG and other stuff works by stimulating the taste bud receptors, thats what I mean by "tricking". thats also why they put a bunch of it in processed foods, so they taste better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not really tricking, but I see your meaning. We like MSG AND the thing it is mimicking. They both taste good. One tastes good for evolutionarily (human) beneficial reasons, the other for non-beneficial reasons.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
"trick" you into thinking it tastes good



I don't think you can trick someone into thinking something tastes good. It tastes good or it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

not true at all, MSG and other stuff works by stimulating the taste bud receptors, thats what I mean by "tricking". thats also why they put a bunch of it in processed foods, so they taste better.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it still tastes good. What you are talking about is something other than "taste"

[/ QUOTE ]

Its 'beneficiality' or something like that. MSG is piggy-backing on the usefulness of some other substance (glutamate). Still tastes good though, no trick there.

[Acein8ter]

[ QUOTE ]
If junk food is bad for us why do we like it? Has our body simply not adapted to our new lifestyle?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people like the taste of fat (oil) and sugar...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If junk food is bad for us why do we like it? Has our body simply not adapted to our new lifestyle?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people like the taste of fat (oil) and sugar...

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but people like salty foods too, and no one pounds saltshakers until their osmolarity gets so out of whack that they die.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]

Right, but people like salty foods too, and no one pounds saltshakers until their osmolarity gets so out of whack that they die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard people talk about refined sugar and how it doesn't trigger a full feeling, unlike, say, bannanas. personally I can drink a 12 pack of coke no problem but after 2 or 3 bannanas theres just no way I can eat more so there may be somethingn to it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Right, but people like salty foods too, and no one pounds saltshakers until their osmolarity gets so out of whack that they die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard people talk about refined sugar and how it doesn't trigger a full feeling, unlike, say, bannanas. personally I can drink a 12 pack of coke no problem but after 2 or 3 bannanas theres just no way I can eat more so there may be somethingn to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, because there IS no caloristat. There IS a osmolaristat, and a volumistat. IOW, there are complicated methods of reguating just about everything in your body, from salt to water to heat to potassium to calcium and so on and so on. But there just ISN'T one for body fat or calories. You just keep packing them on. So, the interesting question is, WHY isn't there one? The answer is that it would probably be a giant waste of time. Every time there is a system like this, it introduces some inefficiences. It takes some energy to maintain all these levels within narrow ranges. But there is usually a nice payoff. It takes a lot of energy to maintain body water levels, but the payoff is you don't immediately die.

So it looks like there isn't much payoff in a fat/sugar regulatory system. Why not? Well, because we always had too little. No need to regulate it if we never had an excess of it. And thats the answer to the OP.

NB: There is, of course, a regulatory system for blood sugar. But this doesn't have much to do with what the OP is talking about. Excess sugars are made into glycogen stores and eventually fat stores, but an excess of these fat stores does nothing to curb future appetite or consumption. This system is for regulation of BLOOD sugar, but not really overall sugar.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, because there IS no caloristat. There IS a osmolaristat, and a volumistat. IOW, there are complicated methods of reguating just about everything in your body, from salt to water to heat to potassium to calcium and so on and so on. But there just ISN'T one for body fat or calories. You just keep packing them on. So, the interesting question is, WHY isn't there one? The answer is that it would probably be a giant waste of time. Every time there is a system like this, it introduces some inefficiences. It takes some energy to maintain all these levels within narrow ranges. But there is usually a nice payoff. It takes a lot of energy to maintain body water levels, but the payoff is you don't immediately die.

So it looks like there isn't much payoff in a fat/sugar regulatory system. Why not? Well, because we always had too little. No need to regulate it if we never had an excess of it. And thats the answer to the OP.

NB: There is, of course, a regulatory system for blood sugar. But this doesn't have much to do with what the OP is talking about. Excess sugars are made into glycogen stores and eventually fat stores, but an excess of these fat stores does nothing to curb future appetite or consumption. This system is for regulation of BLOOD sugar, but not really overall sugar.

[/ QUOTE ]

sounds good to me. I guess a more precise way of saying empty calories wont fill you up.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Right, but people like salty foods too, and no one pounds saltshakers until their osmolarity gets so out of whack that they die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard people talk about refined sugar and how it doesn't trigger a full feeling, unlike, say, bannanas. personally I can drink a 12 pack of coke no problem but after 2 or 3 bannanas theres just no way I can eat more so there may be somethingn to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, because there IS no caloristat. There IS a osmolaristat, and a volumistat. IOW, there are complicated methods of reguating just about everything in your body, from salt to water to heat to potassium to calcium and so on and so on. But there just ISN'T one for body fat or calories. You just keep packing them on. So, the interesting question is, WHY isn't there one? The answer is that it would probably be a giant waste of time. Every time there is a system like this, it introduces some inefficiences. It takes some energy to maintain all these levels within narrow ranges. But there is usually a nice payoff. It takes a lot of energy to maintain body water levels, but the payoff is you don't immediately die.

So it looks like there isn't much payoff in a fat/sugar regulatory system. Why not? Well, because we always had too little. No need to regulate it if we never had an excess of it. And thats the answer to the OP.

NB: There is, of course, a regulatory system for blood sugar. But this doesn't have much to do with what the OP is talking about. Excess sugars are made into glycogen stores and eventually fat stores, but an excess of these fat stores does nothing to curb future appetite or consumption. This system is for regulation of BLOOD sugar, but not really overall sugar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
"trick" you into thinking it tastes good



I don't think you can trick someone into thinking something tastes good. It tastes good or it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

not true at all, MSG and other stuff works by stimulating the taste bud receptors, thats what I mean by "tricking". thats also why they put a bunch of it in processed foods, so they taste better.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it still tastes good. What you are talking about is something other than "taste"

[/ QUOTE ]

Its 'beneficiality' or something like that. MSG is piggy-backing on the usefulness of some other substance (glutamate). Still tastes good though, no trick there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, just arguing the semantics of it. Nitty, but both my wife and I started our neuroscience careers researching taste so I'm sensitive to it.

[Skoob]

I think it's more nurture than nature, meaning we learn from our parents what tastes good. We do not decide for ourselves what is good or not.

My wife is a health food nut, always has been. My son, even while in the womb was getting the good stuff thruogh mom. And again, while being breastfed, was not getting any junk through mom.

Now that he's two, when he asks for "juice" he means tomato juice. He loves the stuff. And it makes me gag (I grew up on kool-aide). He loves soybeans, cauliflower, and can tell the difference between organic milk and the regular old hormone milk (I'm not kidding). His favorite food, couscous. Seriously, he asks for it by name. I was asking for mac'n cheese or "skettiohs" and this kid asks for couscous.

He was taught by his mother (no thanks to dad) what is good.

If mom were to load up on ice cream and chips while pregnant (so many do, and I'm not knocking them for it, just the facts here) then the kid is already off to a bad start.

It's a viscious cycle that won't stop until an entire generation decides to make it stop.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's more nurture than nature, meaning we learn from our parents what tastes good. We do not decide for ourselves what is good or not.

My wife is a health food nut, always has been. My son, even while in the womb was getting the good stuff thruogh mom. And again, while being breastfed, was not getting any junk through mom.

Now that he's two, when he asks for "juice" he means tomato juice. He loves the stuff. And it makes me gag (I grew up on kool-aide). He loves soybeans, cauliflower, and can tell the difference between organic milk and the regular old hormone milk (I'm not kidding). His favorite food, couscous. Seriously, he asks for it by name. I was asking for mac'n cheese or "skettiohs" and this kid asks for couscous.

He was taught by his mother (no thanks to dad) what is good.

If mom were to load up on ice cream and chips while pregnant (so many do, and I'm not knocking them for it, just the facts here) then the kid is already off to a bad start.

It's a viscious cycle that won't stop until an entire generation decides to make it stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt that you can modify behavior, and some of the nurture environments that the average American finds himself in are very unhealthy and contribute to this problem.

But there really just isn't any arguing that all human beings everywhere, no matter how healthy, really like the taste of sugar and fat, at least on some level. I suppose its possible to rigorously condition yourself to dislike it...maybe. But thats a pretty artificial situation. Your body LOVES sugar and fat. It really does. And it has everything to do with evolutionary history.