Quick Hits: Junk Food as Heroin, DV up During Sports Losses, FDIC in the Red

A study by the Scripps Research Institute in October shows that junk food can be as addictive as heroin in rats:

Junk food elicits addictive behavior in rats similar to the behaviors of rats addicted to heroin, a new study finds. Pleasure centers in the brains of rats addicted to high-fat, high-calorie diets became less responsive as the binging wore on, making the rats consume more and more food. The results, presented October 20 at the Society for Neuroscience’s annual meeting, may help explain the changes in the brain that lead people to overeat.

“This is the most complete evidence to date that suggests obesity and drug addiction have common neurobiological underpinnings,” says study coauthor Paul Johnson of the Scripps Research Institute in Jupiter, Fla....

After just five days on the junk food diet, rats showed “profound reductions” in the sensitivity of their brains’ pleasure centers, suggesting that the animals quickly became habituated to the food. As a result, the rats ate more food to get the same amount of pleasure. Just as heroin addicts require more and more of the drug to feel good, rats needed more and more of the junk food. “They lose control,” Kenny says. “This is the hallmark of addiction.”

I know Dr. David Kessler discusses food addiction and overeating in his book The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite, but I haven't gotten to read it yet. As soon as I do I'll post about it.

Next up, Jezebel posted a link to a study that showed that football losses are correlated with spikes in domestic violence:

Economists Gordon Dahl and David Card looked at twelve years of football upsets — losses by teams predicted to win by three or more points. They found that during the regular season, such losses were correlated with an 8% increase in male-initiated partner violence in the hours immediately after the game. Female-on-male violence and child abuse were both unaffected by football losses, but violence against friends and neighbors increased by about the same percentage partner violence did. So essentially, men who just watched their team lose are more likely to beat up lovers and friends.

Mentally healthy people in stable relationships probably don't suddenly assault their spouses because the Steelers lost. But it's worth examining the possible external triggers for abuse — triggers that have nothing to do with a woman being "difficult" or "asking for it."

The domestic violence shelter where I volunteer gets the most hotline calls during the holidays and the Superbowl.

And finally, a little tidbit of a story that was hidden at the bottom of the NYT home page this afternoon:

The government-administered insurance fund that protects depositors [the F.D.I.C] fell $8.2 billion into the red for the first time since the fallout from the savings-and-loan crisis of the early 1990s as the pace of bank failures accelerated in the third quarter.

The article says that consumers shouldn't worry since "the bulk of that negative balance reflects money the agency has set aside to cover future bank failures," but, uh, what if more banks fail, which is exactly what this article predicts?

Books Critiquing America Series: Rethinking Thin

Rethinking Thin: The New Science of Weight Loss---and the Myths and Realities of Dieting by Gina Kolata

Not too long ago, I thought that anyone who was overweight chose to be overweight, and that if they really wanted to be thin, they could. Many people still think this about the overweight and obese- why can’t they just eat less and exercise more? What’s keeping them from getting control of their lives? Well, according to Kolata’s book, this is a question that has been puzzling scientists for decades. And, spoiler alert, it’s rarely the obese person who is to blame for their weight.

In our thin obsessed culture, each new diet promises those struggling with their weight that they can “get back in control of their life,” and “finally have that body they always dreamed of.” The diet industry in America generates billions of dollars a year- yet more and more people are overweight. In fact, 95% of people who lose a significant amount of weight will put it back on within four years. So it seems pretty obvious that no diet, pill, or behavior modification can work. Why not?

Kolata follows many scientists, researchers and dieters to figure out why. She details dozens of experiments, and some of them were really fascinating. Over the years, many theories have been debunked thanks to various experiments, like that obesity is a psychological problem, or that overweight people have a slower metabolism than thin people. What researchers do know is that fat people have more fat cells than thin people- and when they are put on a strict diet, these fat cells shrink significantly. In 1954, a man named Jules Hirsch decided to house several obese people in a hospital at Rockefeller University and put them on a strict diet of 600 calories a day. They all lost about 100 pounds each after six months, and Hirsch assumed that when they left the hospital they would be able to keep the weight off easily. All of them regained their weight. This disproved the notion that fat people must want to be fat- because each formerly obese person was ecstatic about their new, thin selves, so what went wrong? The experiment was repeated again and again with the same results. Hirsch and his colleagues figured out that when the patients had lost all that weight, their bodies had changed so much that they clung on to every calorie that was eaten, making it harder and harder for them to stay thin- and easier for them to put the weight back on.

Before the diet began, the fat people had a normal metabolism- the number of calories burned per square meter of body surface was no different than it was for people who were thin and had never been fat. That changed substantially when they lost weight, with the formerly fat people burning as much as 24 percent fewer calories per square meter of their surface area than the calories used by those who were naturally thin….these subjects also had a psychiatric syndrome that had been termed ‘semi-starvation neurosis.’ They dreamed of food, they fantasized about food or about breaking their diet.

Physiologically, they were literally starving. Hirch concluded, “It is entirely possibly that weight reduction, instead of resulting in a normal state of obese patients, results in an abnormal state resembling that of a starved non-obese individual.” Many yo-yo dieters can relate to this phenomenon- once they lose a certain amount of weight, they plateau before starting to regain. Their body is adjusting its metabolism to start putting back on weight, and there is little any of us can do to reverse that.

Study after study by researchers all over the country just opened up more questions: if normal weight people were forced to gain weight and become obese, then would it be easier to lose? It turned out that normal weight people weren’t able to gain much weight, no matter how hard they tried. With many more calories and strict confines on physical activity, they were able to increase their weight about 20 percent, but not much more- even when some were eating 10,000 calories a day. This is because their bodies sped up their metabolisms to burn more calories. After this study, researchers figured out that almost everyone’s weight is set at a pre-determined level- think of it like a thermostat. When your weight is in the normal range, your body will either speed up or slow down your metabolism to keep it there, within about 10-15 pounds. So the next question was, when is this weight set? In adulthood, childhood, infancy or even in the womb?

Kolata’s book reads like a mystery novel: clues and setbacks abound. Doctors and researchers have been taking two steps forward and one step back for decades. Some things that have worked in rats haven’t worked in humans, or only certain humans, or only certain humans for a certain amount of time. Doctors have discovered chemicals, intervened in children’s schools and home life, and have found roadblock after roadblock.

Obese people today endure discrimination that simply isn’t acceptable in any other group. One woman said that any time she went to the doctor feeling sick he blamed it on her being fat. Even when she had a sore throat, he told her it was because she had too much fat on her neck. The stereotypes of fat people- that they are all lazy, dumb, and out of control, are very prevalent, and these people are always blamed for their weight. But a lot of times it’s out of their control. Yes- there are people who have lost a significant amount of weight and have managed to keep it off, but those people are rare, and they must dedicate themselves to a life of constant vigilance to stay that way.

Although being overweight doesn’t always mean unhealthy (that’s covered in the book, and here), overweight people can suffer from ailments such as diabetes and knee problems, and are more likely not to get married and be paid lower wages than their normal weight colleagues.

So now researchers are trying to find a cure for obesity that somehow alters some of the most basic functions of the human body, and it is proving to be quite difficult. Kolata details all these efforts, and really will make you think twice about how we all view people who are overweight.


For further reading, check out this amazing article by Kate Harding.

Some of the Good Parts of the Health Care Bill

Ann at Feministing gives some highlights:

• Expands Medicaid "to reach a wider range of poor households up to 150% of the federal poverty level. 36M additional Americans will now be eligible for Medicaid."
• Bars discrimination in health care on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.
• Acknowledges LGBTQ Americans are a population likely to "experience significant gaps in disease, health outcomes, or access to health care." This will hopefully ensure that LGBTQ people are included in future data collection, and that grant programs will focus on their specific health needs.
• Ends the "unfair practice of taxing employer-provided domestic partner health benefits, allowing thousands upon thousands of LGBT people to obtain domestic partner health benefits for their partners and families without having to pay a tax penalty through the nose."
• Allows states to cover early HIV treatment under their Medicaid programs. (Currently, states are only allowed to use Medicaid money for patients with full-blown AIDS.)
• Funds comprehensive sex-ed programs.

The bad part is the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which I mentioned here and here. For further reading on the amendment, here's the NYT editorial, an excellent summary at Jezebel, and the amendment in plain language at NPR.

Health Care Passes House, Abortion Funding Banned

The House passed the health care bill last night, by a vote of 220-215. The amendment that bans the use of federal funds to cover abortions for anyone covered under a proposed government-run health care plan also passed. If this amendment sticks with the plan all the way until it becomes law, it means that anyone who is enrolled in the public option plan will not have abortion covered, even though it is a legal medical procedure. In case you're not sure why this is a big deal, Ann at Feministing explains:

On some level, I don't care about the nitty-gritty details of this amendment. This isn't just about how the money is allocated or what workarounds exist. This has me so incredibly infuriated because it further segregates abortion as something different, off the menu of regular health care. It is a huge backward step in the battle to convey -- not just politically, but to women in their everyday lives -- that reproductive health care is normal and necessary, and must be there if (or, more accurately, when) you need it.

This also sets apart women's rights from the Democratic/progressive/whatever agenda. As something expendable. But fundamental rights for women are not peripheral. They are core. And not just because of so-called "progressive" values. In a political sense, too: Seeing as how the Democratic party relies on women voters to win elections, you would think they would have come around to this no-brainer by now.

Anti-Choicers Block Abortion Coverage in Health Care Bill

With just hours to go before the start on Saturday morning of historic floor debate over the health care bill, leading Democratic members of the Pro-Choice Caucus emerged from Ms. Pelosi’s office unable to contain their fury. Ms. Pelosi, unwilling to delay a vote on the larger bill, had decided that Democrats who oppose abortion simply had too many votes on their side; for the moment, at least, the liberals who favor abortion rights had lost.

In the end, Ms. Pelosi decided that abortion opponents would be allowed to offer an amendment to the health care bill that would impose tight restrictions on abortions that could be offered through a new government-run insurance plan and through private insurance that is bought using government subsidies that the legislation would provide to moderate-Americans to help them afford health coverage.

With dozens of Democrats and most of the 177 Republicans expected to vote in favor of the amendment to restrict coverage for abortions, Democratic leadership aides said it was likely to be approved.

The amount of anger I'm feeling about this prevents me from articulating my position. So, I'll quote Ezra Klein:

Because of the limits placed on the exchanges, most of the participants will have some form of premium credit or affordable subsidy. That means most will be ineligible for abortion coverage. The idea that people are going to go out and purchase separate "abortion plans" is both cruel and laughable. If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers.

The amendment is expected to pass with relative ease. Republicans will join with anti-choice Democrats to push it over the finish line. Once the amendment passes, the bill is cleared for a vote, and all parties expect that vote to succeed. Today looks likely to end with a historic, and important, vote. A vote that is a first step towards helping more than 30 million people secure health-care coverage, and making sure hundreds of millions are better protected from the vagaries of the insurance industry. But Stupak's amendment is a bitter start. It is, however, not the end. Even if it muscles into the House bill, it will also have to pass in the Senate, and then survive conference, before it becomes law.

Here's a quick question: if all these anti-choicers are going to prevent women from affording abortions, will all birth control options be either free or extremely affordable? I'm betting on no. I'm just hoping that if this amendment passes now, a change will be made before the bill is signed into law. Ezra makes a good point- it's not over yet.

Tricked on Halloween

I watched this video at Andrew Sullivan's blog and I had to repost it. A fourth grader is about to give a report about her father stationed in Iraq and gets a big surprise.


Tricked On Halloween - Watch more Funny Videos

My Political Dilemma

When I was in high school, I never read the news or kept up with any elections. I was too young to vote anyway, so what did it matter what I knew? But even then I knew that my ignorance was bliss, and that if I started to read about the issues and the candidates (and their corruption and poor follow through) I’d just feel disillusioned and angry with the whole process.

Well, towards the end of my college career I finally started picking up a newspaper. Between that and the decidedly liberal politics of my college, I began to understand how conservative my family was, and the conflicting educations I was getting at home and at school posed a real challenge to answering the question, “are you a Democrat or a Republican?”

This question came up big time for me during the election for president (I was an Obama supporter, as long time readers may know) and it comes up again, during the election for New Jersey Governor.

Here’s the thing. I love New Jersey. I really, really do. I think we have a little bit of everything here- urban, suburban, rural, casinos, parks, racetracks, near NYC and Philadelphia, the beach, good schools, and plenty of state colleges. There are a lot of things that irk me about New Jersey too, mainly the extremely high cost of living. Several counties in New Jersey reach the top of the highest tax rates in the nation, keeping rents and home prices high in many places in the state (especially northern New Jersey). I’ve seen friends leave the state for a lower cost of living elsewhere, and I think that’s a shame. Chris Christie, the Republican running for governor, mentioned this in a debate with the other candidates. He said when people leave the state, they fall in love in other states, get married in other states, and raise their families there. Although from a road traffic perspective this may be a good thing, something should be done to keep families from being priced out of New Jersey.

The high taxes in New Jersey have long been an issue when elections come around, and this one is no different. Our taxes, tolls and unemployment are all up. Christie vows to cut wasteful spending and lower taxes, but all candidates have said that, and a recent NYT Magazine story detailed why it’s been so difficult in the past (part of it: no municipalities want to combine services, and government employees pensions are almost untouchable). Lowering the cost of living is a big deal to me, since I’d like to buy a home here one day. So I do sort of believe that Christie would try to lower taxes in New Jersey, so on that front I’d be inclined to vote for him. Yet, he’s against a woman’s right to choose and same sex marriages. And it’s these two issues that I cannot agree with, and in fact, will decide my vote.

I think it will always be like this for me. Maybe this makes me a bad voter. But I simply cannot vote for someone who wants to restrict/prohibit abortions or is against same sex marriage. If that means that my taxes are high or that I have to save longer for a mortgage, then that’s worth it to me. However, I don’t think it has to be this way. Moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava is an example. She was running for a spot in the House of Representatives, but suspended her race because she was “under siege from conservative leaders because she supported gay rights and abortion rights.” Political conservatives with a liberal view on social issues exist, but we don’t seem to see too many of them.

Candidates in either party must adhere to strict guidelines when it comes to the issues of abortion and same sex marriage. Democrats are always for, Republicans always against. It would be nice, for a voter like me, if this wasn’t always the case. If there was a candidate who wanted to keep taxes low but also was for marriage equality, or who wanted a strong national defense but also made sure a woman’s right to choose was enforced. I think a lot of people are moderates, and seeing more candidates cross the defined party lines on some issues would be great options for us.

But for now, there are a couple of issues I just can’t waver on- even if my tolls get hiked up again.

Cartman Singing Poker Face

The radio station Z100 has gotten over 57,000 requests for Eric Cartman singing Lady GaGa's "Poker Face." Why? Because it's totally hilarious. Watch the full episode here.