A cupcake is calling you.
You can practically taste the sweet, creamy goodness. You want it so badly you can’t think of anything else. But is it really the taste you crave—or the pleasant associations it brings? Or do you crave it partly because you know you shouldn’t have it? Will fighting the urge make it go away or only make it worse?
Scientists are exploring all these questions as they seek to understand food cravings. The research is taking on new urgency with the nation’s obesity epidemic, since cravings are widely believed to influence snacking behavior, binge eating and bulimia.
Among the findings so far:
Food cravings activate the same reward circuits in the brain as cravings for drugs or alcohol, according to functional MRI scans, tests that measure brain activity by detecting changes in blood flow.
Nearly everyone has food cravings occasionally, but women report having them more often than men, and younger people crave sweets more than older people do.
In one study, 85% of men said they found giving in to food craving satisfying; of women, only 57% said they did.
While many women report craving salt, fat or bizarre combinations of food during pregnancy, researchers can’t find much scientific validation. They suspect folklore and the power of suggestion instead.
For decades, researchers surmised that food cravings were the body’s subconscious effort to correct nutritional deficiencies. Longing for steak could indicate a need for protein or iron, according to this theory. Chocoholics might be low on magnesium or other mood-altering chemicals that chocolate contains, including phenylethylamine, a compound humans produce when they’re in love.
But a growing body of research casts doubt on the nutritional-deficiency notion. After all, few people crave vitamin-rich green leafy vegetables and many other foods contain more phenylalanine than chocolate—including salami and cheddar cheese.
Instead, studies show that food cravings involve a complex mix of social, cultural and psychological factors, heavily influenced by environmental cues. While chocolate is consistently the most-craved food in North America, Japanese women are more likely to crave sushi, a recent study found. And only 1% of young Egyptian men and 6% of young Egyptian women reported craving chocolate, according to a 2003 survey. “Many other languages don’t have a word for ‘craving.’ The concept seems to be uniquely important in American culture,” says psychologist Julia Hormes at the University at Albany.
In the U.S., about 50% of women who crave chocolate say their cravings peak around the onset of their monthly period. But researchers haven’t found any correlation between food cravings and hormone levels, and postmenopausal women don’t report a big drop in chocolate cravings, a 2009 survey found. Some psychologists suspect that women may be “self-medicating,” because sweets and carbohydrates spur release of serotonin and other feel-good brain chemicals.
A study of 98 female students at the University of Pennsylvania last year found that those who reported the most cycle-related cravings also had a history of dieting, eating disorders and high body mass indexes. “These seem to be women who think, ‘I shouldn’t have any chocolate at all,’ but then they give in and have the whole bar,” says Dr. Hormes, who led much of the U. Penn research. “The more they try to restrict it, the more they craved it.”
Typically, people crave foods they enjoy—but not always. “It’s possible to like a food without craving it, and crave a food without liking it,” says Marcia Pelchat, a food psychologist at the Monell Chemical Senses Center, a research facility in Philadelphia.
Getty Images
Too many sweets can flood the brain’s reward circuits, causing constant cravings.
In one 2004 study she conducted, a group of subjects consumed only vanilla-flavor Boost, a protein drink, for five days to assess their cravings for other food. She was amazed to find many of them craved Boost after returning to a regular diet: “We thought they’d never want to see it again.”
The same phenomenon occurs with movie-theater popcorn, Dr. Pelchat says: “Most people will admit it’s not the world’s best popcorn, but if the line is long and you’re not able to buy it, you may well crave it.”
Functional MRI scans by Dr. Pelchat showed that sensory memory food cravings activate the same parts of the brain that drug and alcohol cravings do, including the hippocampus, which helps store memories; the insula, involved in perception and emotion; and the caudate, which is important for learning and memory. The circuit is driven by dopamine, the neurotransmitter responsible for reward-driven learning.
Experts say that cravings are fine on occasion—say, for pumpkin pie at Thanksgiving, gingerbread at Christmas or for healthy choices year-round. But indulging too often can send cravings spiraling out of control.
Brain researchers have documented that when people continually bombard their reward circuits with drugs, alcohol or high-fat, high-sugar foods, many of the dopamine receptors in the system shut down to prevent overload. And with fewer dopamine receptors at work, the system craves more and more, insatiably. “Pretty soon, one cupcake doesn’t do it anymore. You have to overstuff yourself and you still don’t get that reward,” says Pam Peeke, a physician and author of the new book, “The Hunger Fix.” She notes that food addiction creates changes in the prefrontal cortex, which normally override impulsivity and addictive urges.
What is the best way to fight food cravings? Many studies have shown that the more subjects try to restrict a food, the more they may crave it. So some experts suggest embracing and controlling the urge instead.
One 2003 study at University College in London found that subjects who ate chocolate only in the middle of a meal or just after were more successful at giving it up than those who ate it on an empty stomach.
Cognitive behavior therapy can also be helpful. Researchers in Adelaide, Australia, gave 110 self-professed chocolate cravers each a bag of chocolates to carry around for a week, and instructed half of them in “cognitive restructuring”—challenging their thoughts about chocolate—while the other half learned “cognitive defusion”—accepting and observing their thoughts without acting on them. At the end, the defusion group had three times as much chocolate left than the other group.
Exercise can also cut food cravings. Women who walked briskly on a treadmill for 45 minutes had far less brain response to food images, according to a new study from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, published in the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.
Other forms of distraction include chewing gum and smelling a nonfood item. Taking a deep whiff of jasmine, for example, helps occupy the same aroma receptors that are a key part of food cravings.
Dr. Peeke suggests setting a timer for 30 minutes whenever a craving comes on. Busy yourself with something else until the timer goes off. The craving may have passed. “If you can at least delay eating the craved food, you can weaken the habitual response,” agrees Dr. Pelchat.
The good news: The longer people stave off their food cravings, studies show, the weaker the urges become.
Write to Melinda Beck at HealthJournal@wsj.com
A version of this article appeared September 18, 2012, on page D1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: How to Fend Off a Food Craving.
Month: September 2012
Thurston Howell Romney: NYT Op-Ed by David Brooks on Romney's Ignorant Comments
In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.
There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.
But these are not the sensible arguments that Mitt Romney made at a fund-raiser earlier this year. Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people “who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”
This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?
It suggests that Romney doesn’t know much about the culture of America. Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but America remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else. Americans believe in work more than almost any other people. Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey.
It says that Romney doesn’t know much about the political culture. Americans haven’t become childlike worshipers of big government. On the contrary, trust in government has declined. The number of people who think government spending promotes social mobility has fallen.
The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.
Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.
The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view — from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.
The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.
But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don’t deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.
People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear.
Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.
Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?
Do Your Own Thinking! Unless You'd Rather I Do it for You!
On This Day: September 18
Updated September 17, 2012, 2:28 pm
On Sept. 18, 1947, the National Security Act, which unified the Army, Navy and newly formed Air Force, went into effect.
On Sept. 18, 1905, Greta Garbo, the Swedish-born American film icon, was born. Following her death on April 15, 1990, her obituary appeared in The Times.
Go to obituary » | Other birthdays »
Historic Birthdays
Greta Garbo 9/18/1905 – 4/15/1990 Swedish-born American film star of silent and talking movies.Go to obituary »
75 Samuel Johnson 9/18/1709 – 12/13/1784
English critic, biographer, essayist and poet65 Joseph Story 9/18/1779 – 9/10/1845
American associate justice of the U. S. Supreme Court (1811-45)48 Jean-Bernard Foucault 9/18/1819 – 2/11/1868
French physicist and inventor of the “Foucault pendulum”87 Sir John Kerr 9/18/1869 – 4/21/1957
English embryologist and pioneer in naval camouflage83 John Diefenbaker 9/18/1895 – 8/16/1979
Canadian attorney, statesman and prime minister88 Agnes de Mille 9/18/1905 – 10/7/1993
American dancer and choreographer83 Edwin McMillan 9/18/1907 – 9/7/1991
American Nobel Prize-winning nuclear physicist (1951)83 Raymond Geiger 9/18/1910 – 4/1/1994
American editor of the Farmers’ Almanac78 Rossano Brazzi 9/18/1916 – 12/24/1994
Italian attorney, actor and director
Back to Basics: Dal and Poori (Well, the Latter Is a Monday Indulgence)
Is Poverty a Kind of Robbery? NYT Op-Ed by Thomas Edsall
In her presentation on Sept. 7 at a symposium on inequality at Yale, Alice Goffman, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin, talked about the winter of 2011-2012, which she spent living in Detroit among the very poor. Goffman described some of the effects of extreme poverty by quoting the words of a Detroit resident to whom she gave the pseudonym “Marqueta”:
Your fingers get slow, you know, your whole body slows down. You can’t really do much, you try to put a good face on for the kids, but when they leave you just keep still, keep the covers around you. Almost like you kind of fold into the floor. Like you’re just waiting it out. You don’t really think about too much.… November your stomach is crying at you but by December you know, you start to just shut down…. Around 3 you get up for the kids. Put the space heaters, so they come home and it’s warm in here.
There are further manifestations of the suffering on the east side of Detroit, according to Goffman:
The cold, hunger, and the depression that accompanies them both, makes for a certain moral relativism. Lots of people have written about what people become willing to do under conditions of uncertainty and extreme duress. Sailors who are lost at sea, or people in war. By the end of Detroit’s winter people become willing to do to things that they would not have considered in the more plentiful months. Like stealing, or selling their bodies.
Underneath the statistics, hidden behind the desolation of the poor in the poorest big city in the United States, lies one of most intractable political dilemmas of our era: Can the Democratic party, the party of the left, address issues of poverty and want in today’s political environment? For example, can they talk about hunger?
Hunger has grown sharply since the financial collapse of 2008, although it is felt acutely by a relatively small percentage of the population. In 2007, 12.2 percent of Americans experienced what the Department of Agriculture describes as “low food security,” including 4 percent who fell into the category of very low food security. By 2011, the percentage of those coping with low food security rose to 16.4 percent, and those experiencing very low food security went up to 5.5 percent.
The U.S.D.A. defines “low food security” as a lack of access “at all times to enough nutritious food for an active, healthy life.” It defines “very low food security” as individuals going without or with very little food “at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food.”
Looked at through the calculus of contemporary partisan politics, the U.S.D.A. data demonstrates that in 2011 low food security was a problem for just under one in eight whites — a matter of concern but for many white voters, a virtually invisible issue. Very low food security affects the lives of only one in 24 whites.
For African Americans, low food security is a problem affecting one in four, and one in ten experience very low food security. The percentage of Hispanics who experience low food security is higher than the percentage of blacks, although the percentage of Hispanics suffering very low food security is slightly lower.
Here is the 2007 U.S.D.A. data broken down by race and ethnicity:
And here is the parallel data for 2011:
The issue of hunger sheds light on the broader politics of poverty.
Democrats have concluded that getting enough votes on Nov. 6 precludes taking policy positions that alienate middle-class whites. In practice this means that on the campaign trail there is an absence of explicit references to the poor — and we didn’t hear much about them at the Democratic National Convention either.
Republicans, in turn, see taking a decisive majority of white votes as their best chance of winning the presidency. The 2012 electorate is likely to be 72% white, according to a number of analyses. In this scenario, Republicans need to get at least 62 percent of the white vote to win, and Democrats need to get 38 percent or more of the white vote.
Elijah Anderson, a sociologist at Yale and the author of several highly praised books about race and urban America, including “The Cosmopolitan Canopy,” organized the symposium. When I asked him about the Democrats’ problems in addressing poverty, Anderson wrote back in an email:
Apparently, the Republicans have backed the Democrats, and President Obama in particular, into the proverbial racial corner. It is a supreme irony that Obama, the nation’s first African-American President, finds himself unable to advocate for truly disadvantaged blacks, or even to speak out forthrightly on racial issues. To do so is to risk alienating white conservative voters, who are more than ready to scream, “we told you so,” that Obama is for “the blacks.” But it is not just the potential white voters, but the political pundits who quickly draw attention to such actions, slanting their stories to stir up racial resentment. Strikingly, blacks most often understand President Obama’s problems politically, and continue to vote for him, understanding the game full well, that Obama is doing the “best he can” in what is clearly a “deeply racist society.” It’s a conundrum.
The issue of race helps to explain another development in academia as well as in the public debate: the near abandonment of the once powerful tradition of exposing the exploitation of the poor.
Matthew Desmond, an assistant professor of sociology at Harvard, another speaker at the Yale symposium, described the extensive history of landlords, lenders and employers profiting from the rent and labor of slum dwellers. Desmond posed a question:
If exploitation long has helped to create the slum and its inhabitants, if it long has been a clear, direct, and systematic, cause of poverty and social suffering, why, then, has this ugly word — exploitation — been erased from current theories of urban poverty?
Instead, Desmond argued, contemporary urban poverty research
pivots upon the concept of a lack. Structural accounts emphasize the inner city’s lack of jobs, social services, or organizations. Cultural accounts emphasize the inner city’s lack of role models, custodial fathers, and middle-class values. Although usually pitted against one another, structural and cultural approaches share a common outlook: that the inner city is a void, a needy thing, and, like supplies lowered into the leper colony, that its problems can be solved by filing the void with more stuff: e.g., more jobs, more education, more social services.
This approach, Desmond contends, results in the misjudgment that proposals to lessen poverty by raising the minimum wage or improving welfare benefits would be sufficient. Not so, says Desmond, who spent months exploring evictions of the poor — white and black — in Milwaukee: “In a world of exploitation, such an assumption is anything but obvious.”
When Desmond began his Milwaukee fieldwork, he
wondered why middle- and upper-class landlords would buy and manage property in some of Milwaukee’s roughest neighborhoods. At the end of my fieldwork, I wondered why they wouldn’t. As Sherrena [Tarver, the pseudonym of one of the landlords he spoke to] would tell me the first time we met, “The ’hood is good. There’s a lot of money there.… A two bedroom is a two bedroom is a two bedroom. If it’s nice enough, and the people are O.K. with their living arrangements, they’re gonna take it. They are at our mercy right now. They have to have a place to stay.
At the height of the housing collapse, Tarver saw an opportunity. “This moment right now,” she told Desmond, “it’s going to create a lot of millionaires. You know, if you have money right now, you can profit from other people’s failures. … I’m catching the properties. I’m catching ‘em.”
Desmond backs up his argument — that cash transfers to the poor get siphoned off by landlords — with evidence from his study of evictions:
If Milwaukee evictions are lowest each February, it is because many members of the city’s working poor dedicate some (or all) of their Earned Income Tax Credit to pay back rent, the majority paying steep fees to receive early payments through refund anticipation loans. The E.I.T.C., it would seem, is as much a benefit to inner-city landlords and H&R Block as it is to working families. In fixating almost exclusively on what poor neighborhoods lack, social scientists and policymakers alike have overlooked a fact that never has been lost on landlords: that there is good money to be made by tapping into the riches of the slum.
Desmond makes the case for the elevation of
the concept of exploitation to a more central position within the sociology of inequality. For who could argue that the urban poor today are not just as exploited as they were in generations past, what with the acceleration of rents throughout the housing crisis; the proliferation of pawn shops, the number of which doubled in the 1990s; the emergence of the payday lending industry, boasting of more stores across the U.S. than McDonald’s restaurants and netting upwards of $7 billion annually in fees; and the colossal expansion of the subprime lending industry, which was generating upwards of $100 billion in annual revenues at the peak of the housing bubble? And yet conventional accounts of inequality, structural and cultural approaches alike, continue to view urban poverty strictly as the result of some inanity. How different our theories would be — and with them our policy prescriptions — if we began viewing poverty as the result of a kind of robbery.
Desmond’s presentation raises another question: How different would the nation’s politics be if either party, or at least the Democrats, added the concept of economic exploitation to its repertoire?
Not only would doing so risk inflaming the issue of race, but it would put at risk existing sources of campaign finance on which both parties are dependent. The finance-insurance-real estate sector is the single largest source of cash for the Democratic Party, $46.3 million in the current election cycle, and for the Republican Party too, at $67.7 million.
This dependence on moneyed interests effectively precludes exploitation as a theme for either major party to develop. These sources of campaign cash would dry up if they became the target of policies or positions they found threatening.
Even as polarization poses more sharply defined choices to the voter, pressing issues remain off limits. Poverty and hunger have been dropped from the agenda. The range of policy and electoral choices remains confined to what fits comfortably into a world of muted ethical concern, a world in which moral relativism has permeated society not so much from the bottom up, as from the top down.
The unshackling of moneyed interests — in the name of first amendment rights — from restraints on campaign contributions has, in fact, constrained the free speech of the disadvantaged. It empowers those whose goal is to hinder consumer-protection legislation, to forestall more progressive tax rates and to quash populist insurgencies.
This skewing of the odds in favor of the rich comes at a time when the Democratic Party is already inhibited by accusations that it likes to foment “class warfare” and to play “the race card.” The result has been a relentless shift of the political center from left to right. The two most recent Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, have pursued agendas well within this limited terrain. There is little reason to believe that Obama, if he wins in November, will feel empowered to push out much further into territory the Democrats have virtually abandoned.
Thomas B. Edsall, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, is the author of the book “The Age of Austerity: How Scarcity Will Remake American Politics,” which was published earlier this year.
On This Day: September 17
Updated September 16, 2012, 2:28 pm
On Sept. 17, 1862, Union forces hurled back a Confederate invasion of Maryland in the Civil War battle of Antietam. With 23,100 killed, wounded or captured, it remains the bloodiest day in U.S. military history.
On Sept. 17, 1934, Maureen Connolly, the first woman to win the tennis Grand Slam, was born. Following her death on June 21, 1969, her obituary appeared in The Times.
Go to obituary » | Other birthdays »
On This Date
By The Associated Press
1787 The U.S. Constitution was completed and signed by a majority of delegates attending the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. 1907 Warren Burger, the 15th chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was born in St. Paul, Minn. 1920 The American Professional Football Association – a precursor of the National Football League – was formed in Canton, Ohio. 1939 The Soviet Union invaded Poland during World War II. 1947 James V. Forrestal was sworn in as the first U.S. secretary of defense. 1972 The comedy series “M.A.S.H.” premiered on CBS. 1976 NASA unveiled the space shuttle Enterprise. 1980 Former Nicaraguan president Anastasio Somoza was assassinated in Paraguay. 1986 The Senate confirmed the nomination of William H. Rehnquist as the 16th chief justice of the United States. 1996 Former Vice President Spiro T. Agnew died at age 77. 2001 Wall Street trading resumed for the first time since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks – its longest shutdown since the Depression; the Dow lost 684.81 points, its worst one-day point drop to date. 2001 Pro sporting events resumed after a six-day hiatus following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. 2003 New York Stock Exchange chairman Dick Grasso resigned amid a furor over his $139.5 million pay package. 2004 Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev claimed responsibility for the recent school siege in Beslan and other terrorist attacks in Russia that claimed more than 430 lives. 2004 San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds hit his 700th career home run, joining Babe Ruth (714) and Hank Aaron (755) as the only players to reach the milestone. 2011 A demonstration calling itself Occupy Wall Street began in New York. Current Birthdays
By The Associated Press
Actor Kyle Chandler (“Friday Night Lights”) turns 47 years old today.
AP Photo/Chris Pizzello
Actor Matthew Settle (“Gossip Girl,” “Band of Brothers”) turns 43 years old today.
AP Photo/Evan Agostini
1933 Charles Grassley, U.S. senator, R-Iowa, turns 79 1939 David Souter, Retired Supreme Court justice, turns 73 1945 Phil Jackson, Basketball coach, turns 67 1950 Fee Waybill, Rock singer (The Tubes), turns 62 1951 Cassandra Peterson, Actress (“Elvira, Mistress of the Dark”), turns 61 1953 Rita Rudner, Comedian, turns 59 1962 Baz Luhrmann, Director (“Moulin Rouge”), turns 50 1975 Constantine Maroulis, Singer, actor (“American Idol,” “The Bold and the Beautiful”), turns 37 1985 Jon Walker, Rock musician (Panic at the Disco), turns 27
Historic Birthdays
Maureen Connolly 9/17/1934 – 6/21/1969 American tennis player. Go to obituary »
64 Frederick von Steuben 9/17/1730 – 11/28/1794
German officer; helped the cause of U. S. independence75 Mercy Jackson 9/17/1802 – 12/13/1877
American physician; pioneered women’s acceptance in medicine74 David Dunbar Buick 9/17/1854 – 3/6/1929
Scottish-born American automobile manufacturer69 Christian Lange 9/17/1869 – 12/11/1938
Norwegian Nobel Prize-winning peace advocate (1921)51 Rube Foster 9/17/1879 – 12/9/1930
American baseball player; founded the Negro National League79 William Carlos Williams 9/17/1883 – 3/4/1963
American physician, poet, novelist and short story writer70 Sir Francis Chichester 9/17/1901 – 8/26/1972
English adventurer; sailed solo around the world83 Sir Frederick Ashton 9/17/1904 – 8/18/1988
English choreographer and director of the Royal Ballet87 Warren Burger 9/17/1907 – 6/25/1995
American 15th chief justice of the United States
(1969-86)66 David Oistrakh 9/17/1908 (O.S.) – 10/24/1974
Ukrainian violin virtuoso29 Hank Williams 9/17/1923 – 1/1/1953
American country western singer and guitarist





Greta Garbo 9/18/1905 – 4/15/1990 Swedish-born American film star of silent and talking movies.








Maureen Connolly 9/17/1934 – 6/21/1969 American tennis player.








