The Renowned Rat Park

In the previous post, we looked at the origin story of the “Myth of the Demon Drug” as described by Professor Emeritus Bruce K. Alexander who suggests that, in a series of experiments on lab rodents, the demonic force at work was actually confinement in a solitary metal cell, along with the dosing methodology where the animals had tubes and needles stuck into them, and no alternative activities other than pressing a lever to get drugs.

The reason for looking into all this is to understand what people mean when they talk about FA, or food addiction. “Addiction” is quite the loaded term, and once the discussion turns to addiction in terms of food and in relation to obesity, watch out! A lot of firm opinions, and even stronger feelings, are involved in these debates.

In order to read anything meaningful about addiction into those strictly coercive drug-taking experiments, it seems as though credulity must be stretched pretty far. To emphasize this, Prof. Alexander also wrote,

[T]aking drugs in a Skinner box where almost no effort is required and there is nothing else to do is nothing like human addiction which always involves making choices between many possible alternatives.

But how did Prof. Alexander catch on to this discrepancy in the first place? He and a small group of Simon Fraser University colleagues wondered how the drug-seeking behavior of rodents might look if they lived under a more lenient, reasonable regime. As scientists will do, this group came up with a plan and proceeded to run experiments comparing the behavior of two populations:

This required building a great big plywood box on the floor of our laboratory, filling it with things that rats like, such as platforms for climbing, tin cans for hiding in, wood chips for strewing around, and running wheels for exercise. Naturally we included lots of rats of both sexes, and naturally the place soon was teeming with babies. The rats loved it and we loved it too, so we called it “Rat Park”.

The researchers observed the delightful antics and well-socialized behavior of the Rat Park residents. These creatures of course possessed great autonomy, and had been supplied with lifestyle alternatives, like the opportunity to play with toys, run on exercise wheels, and experience unlimited interaction with other individuals. They even had scenery! The team painted murals on the walls, depicting the silhouettes of trees against a green background. It was a brave effort to create a simulacrum of a normal environment, inside a laboratory, with enhanced security and no weather.

And there also, on the other hand, with cruelly limited options, were the solitary confinement rats, in standard barren cages, equipped with the means to consume downers or uppers on demand. Were they miserable because they constantly self-administered drugs? Or did they shoot up all day because they were miserable? Prof. Alexander wrote,

It soon became absolutely clear to us that the earlier Skinner box experiments did not prove that morphine was irresistible to rats. Rather, most of the consumption of rats isolated in a Skinner box was likely to be a response to isolation itself.

(To be continued…)

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “ Rat Park versus The New York Time,” BruceKAlexander.com, undated
Source: “Addiction: The View from Rat Park,” BruceKAlexander.com, undated
Image by Zinnia Jones/CC BY 2.0

The Genesis of Some Beliefs About Addiction

In reviewing the history of beliefs and research about food addiction, familiarly known as FA, it can be seen how the significance of an animal experiment might be misconstrued. One of the most fascinating stories to come from science in recent years is that of the Rat Park.

This is the introduction to it, with quotations from one of the participants, Professor Emeritus Bruce K. Alexander who described the background and climate of thought at the time:

In the 1960s, some experimental psychologists began to think that the Skinner Box was a good place to study drug addiction. They perfected techniques that allowed the rats to inject small doses of a drug into themselves by pressing the lever…

Under appropriate conditions, rats would press the lever often enough to consume large amounts of heroin, morphine, amphetamine, cocaine, and other drugs in this situation…

The results seemed to prove that these drugs were irresistibly addicting, even to rodents, and by extension, to human beings.

This fits right in with the narratives being spun to promote the War on Drugs, so officialdom was happy to accept every implication suggested by the behavior of the rodent dope fiends.

The bedrock

In the previous post, we learned that before any theory is posited, certain basic things are acknowledged, whether consciously or subliminally, to be true. Certainly, most studies in Dr. Pretlow’s field take for granted that childhood obesity is undesirable, and should be avoided. Most, not all — but that subject is for another day.

As a basic premise, Prof. Alexander points out that rats are rats, and goes on to ask,

How can we possibly reach conclusions about complex, perhaps spiritual experiences like human addiction and recovery by studying rats?

Fair enough! Regarding the specially bred lab rats, he also notes that, in nature, members of the same species are gregarious, industrious, and community-oriented. A life sentence in a locked metal box is probably as traumatic for them as it is for us. If human prisoners in solitary confinement could pull a lever and receive doses of heroin, they would. In order to derive information from these kinds of observations at all, it is necessary for the scientists and their audiences to share a core belief that any of this is normal.

Rodent experiments somehow gave rise to another core belief, that…

[…] the great appetite for morphine, heroin, and cocaine that earlier experiments had demonstrated in rats housed in the tiny solitary confinement cages proved that these drugs were irresistible to all mammals, including human beings.

Alexander called this the “Myth of the Demon Drug,” which went on to become “the backbone of mainstream theories of addiction in those days.” It generated a sub-theory:

[A]lthough many rats and people are not permanently transformed into addicts by exposure to a demon drug, those who have a “genetic predisposition” are. The ones that are transformed are still said to have been robbed of their will power, as if the drug had “flipped a switch in their brain.” The result is that these transformed rats and people have a “chronic relapsing brain disease” called addiction.

There is nothing inherently wrong with looking for a genetic component to FA and/or obesity. But a genetic predisposition might have been more zealously sought by factions that needed to explain why addiction does not befall every creature exposed to substances. Genetic predisposition may be needed to patch up holes in some other theories. Or at least, a dubious researcher could not be blamed for suspecting as much.

(To be continued…)

Source: “Addiction: The View from Rat Park,” BruceKAlexander.com, undated
Source: “Rat Park versus The New York Times,” BruceKAlexander.com, undated
Image by Sarah Laval/CC BY 2.0

Roots of Food Addiction Objections

For decades, the debate has persisted over the validity of “food addiction” as a thing that medical science should deal with or even acknowledge. It seems acceptable to refer to the overall concept as FA, without necessarily agreeing on all the details or indeed, whether it exists at all.

Is FA a legit clinical entity? Many different arguments have been offered. A decade-old paper laid a lot of groundwork for understanding why the controversy is ongoing. Titled, “Is food addiction a valid and useful concept?“, it was written by University of Cambridge scholars H. Ziauddeen and P. C. Fletcher. They said,

While the idea has intuitive clinical and scientific appeal, and may provide an explanatory narrative for individuals struggling with weight and diet control, it has acquired much currency with relatively little supporting evidence.

Others interested in this matter may admit that some evidence exists, but it is the wrong kind, or there is not enough of it, however much there is. As with any multifactorial problem, there are dimensions. People might be talking about neuroscientific evidence, behavioral evidence, or clinical evidence.

The authors sorted the matter into two broad categories, starting with fundamental theoretical difficulties. The first of those originates at the neurobiological level. They believed that any discussion of addiction “necessitates the presence of a clearly identifiable addictive agent.” (Of course, that was 10 years ago, and more research has been done in this area.)

Does food contain substances that act like cocaine, heroin, or meth? Lab rodents fed on fat and sugar would behave like little junkies, complete with binge-eating, compulsive food-seeking, neural changes, and withdrawal symptoms. It is possible, the researchers found…

[…] to produce an addiction-like syndrome, one that leads to obesity, with certain nutrient combinations and particular access regimes… However, the findings, while they tell us that hyperpalatable foods, administered in particular, often highly constrained regimens, produce an addiction-like syndrome, they do not afford easy translation to humans who are not subject to such constraints.

And there it is. Does it really make sense to extrapolate from the behavior of caged rodents, all the way out to the behavior of human beings in their glorious variety, and their vastly different environments? How many conclusions can be drawn, exactly? Another quotation from the work:

[A]s we know from substance addictions, drugs vary in their potency and addictive potential (even within a class of substance)… When we speak of FA, are we talking about many addictive substances or one common substance (fat? sugar?) that drives the addiction across many foods?

The authors also note that distinctions need to be made between the natural substances that are inherent to foods, some of which might prove to be addictive in some cases, and products of chemical reactions that wind up in highly processed foods, which also might very well be addictive. We are not just talking about nutrients, but other stuff that gets dumped in there. What if it turns out that millions of people are addicted to Red Dye #2?

(Next, a look at how animal experiments can be misconstrued, leading to conclusions that might not be all-encompassing or definitive.)

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Is food addiction a valid and useful concept?,” Wiley.com, 10/12/12
Image by kphotographer/CC BY-ND 2.0

Outspoken Addicts

We have mentioned a recovering food addict and author of several books, Phil, or Philip Werdell. Last October he hosted the Food Junkies Summit, along with Mary Foushi, an individual who lost 195 pounds and kept it off for 30 years. Since 1995, Werdell has run SHIFT, described as “a workshop-based program for those middle- and late-stage food addicts who did not need hospitalization or direct medical supervision.”

He is also the author of several books, one of them being The Disease Concept of Food Addiction: A Story for People Interested in Recovery, described as “built upon a highly successful introductory lecture he has presented to clients interesting in finding out whether they are food addicted.” It seems to be suitable both for laypeople and for professionals who want to know better how to talk to their patients and clients.

His work has affected people like Jana, who commented online about her personal experience of inspiration:

[T]here’s a certain category of junk food that I know I just can’t start on because if I do, the switch gets flipped back immediately and in a big way. Those boundaries are setting me free!

If you think you may have a sugar or food addiction — or your everyday emotional eating is feeling out of control — I encourage you to consider multiple kinds of help.

Werdell seems to post excerpts or passages of commentary online, and then remove them when the book comes out. This quotation from an expired page is an example:

Their secondary chemical dependency on alcoholism has universally been classified as a cross-addiction. Unfortunately, even this has had little effect in calling for the diagnosis and treatment of possible food addiction prior to making the decision to undergo bariatric surgery.

He’s talking about how many patients, post bariatric surgery, develop alcoholism “serious enough to warrant in-patient treatment.” He puts this number at between 6% and 8%, which is very disheartening because the preparation and the surgery itself are so expensive in terms of effort, emotional investment, and actual money. When it does not work out for any reason, that is bad enough, but a lapse into alcoholism is an outcome to be truly dreaded.

This is only one of many reasons for the urgent need to get this food addiction thing figured out. Werdell also seems to be saying that, while trauma-based eating disorders do exist, food addiction is not one of them. And yet, the world contains many people who learned as children that putting on weight could protect them from criminal abuse. The author appears to grant that they have another type of eating disorder, but not food addiction.

He frequently mentions denial, and places a lot of emphasis on learning to recognize and avoid it. Denial can ruin everything, which is why the traditional AA move was to proclaim, “I’m Jane Doe, and I’m an alcoholic.” It’s not a hard-and-fast rule, but the fact that a person is able to say the words in front of witnesses goes a long way toward enabling them to do something about it.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “The Disease Concept of Food Addiction: A Story for People Interested in Recovery,” Scribd.com, undated
Source: “How emotional eating keeps you stuck,” OhThatstasty.com, undated
Source: “Science of Food Addiction” (page expired, website still active)
Image by Pat Hartman

The Return of the Thousand-Pound Sisters

About a year ago, Childhood Obesity News discussed Amy and Tammy Slaton, morbidly obese adult sisters who won an eating contest and a TV reality show contract. In contemporary society, it would be illegal to haul an obese person around in a horse-drawn wagon, for exhibition in carnivals as a sideshow freak. But if a camera and a worldwide distribution system are involved, anything goes.

Amy had bariatric surgery, and then a baby (some say too soon). Tammy developed a “fat socket” on her forehead, a phenomenon that apparently occurs when the body simply cannot find anywhere else to store the fat. She got up to 665 pounds and contracted COVID-19. Apparently, fans love to practice their armchair psychology skills on the sisters as their relationship goes through all kinds of stress, including epic battles with each other.

The update

A piece published mere hours ago as this was written, reports that the TV show is renewed for another year. At the end of the third season, Tammy was in food addiction rehab and had lost 115 pounds in her first month, so her story is currently a cliffhanger. But, whenever rehab ends, she has no home to return to. Amy and her husband are prepared to take Tammy in the short-term, but not permanently. They expect a second child this summer and will have plenty to deal with.

Now, this blends in well with the more recent topic of food addiction. There is a video of Tammy’s visit last year with Dr. Eric Smith, who said,

It’s an addiction that you have of needing that food to fulfill, maybe when you’re down or sad, or something’s missing in your life. Now, are we closer to surgery? No, we’re not, and I think you know that. But are we closer to getting to the root of the problem so we can eventually get to surgery? I think in a small way we are.

This gives an idea of what an incredibly long and demanding journey can be involved in even the attempt to become eligible for surgery. We are going to look at what more prominent people think about food addiction, when surgery is or is not a consideration. We will also look more closely at the reasons why they hold those particular ideas.

From previous forays into the field, it seems as if there is some confusion in language, with people using different definitions of words and concepts. Once that starts, the door to misunderstanding and disharmony is wide open.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “1000-Lb. Sisters’ Tammy Slaton Is ‘Even More Depressed’ After She Hits 665 Lbs,” People.com, 03/04/21
Source: “‘1000-lb Sisters’: Tammy Slaton Teases Season 4 Amid Weight Loss Update,” Cheatsheet.com, 03/01/22
Image by Midnight Believer/Public Domain

Addiction in the Realm of Food

Back in the 1990s, Dr. Phil Werdell created ACORN Food Dependency Recovery Services and has published several books about the subject, including Bariatric Surgery and Food Addiction: Pre-Operative Considerations. Like many other professionals, this writer was very concerned with the question of whether food dependency is a bona fide addiction. Science has been looking at many different angles, including brain activity, genetics, similarity to opioid addiction, cross addiction, and malfunctioning or overactive hormones.

Much information about Werdell’s ideas, incidentally, came from a book excerpt whose web page has expired. Like any spirited thinker, he expressed the same basic ideas many times, not always in exactly the same words.

A holy grail

In the past, there was thought to be such a thing as the obesity gene, and it was fervently sought. In the early Nineties, a good candidate was identified, but the lead researcher was careful to clarify. The genetic marker he was talking about had to do with an underlying internal chemical dependency on food, but not necessarily a state of observable obesity.

At any rate, no such luck. Of course, it is not just a single gene. Some researchers had always suspected that, like so many other things, the genetic tendency to be obese is multifactorial, and they were not wrong. There are so many possibilities in genetic combination. At this stage, in its predictability, it is not much more useful than pure chaos. Indeed, many genes take part in how digestion works. Some even control sphincter tone and fecal continence. There are a lot of “known unknowns.”

Cross addiction

Several universities and other institutions have produced studies showing that too much sugar can cause “endogenous opioid dependency,” where the brain produces its own dope. This would come under the heading of food being addictive, at least when combined with some cooperation from the brain.

Recovering alcoholics have traditionally tended to develop eating problems, especially around sweets. Beer is replaced by doughnuts. These substitution tactics accomplish nothing but self-deception. It isn’t simply that people get fat. There is pretty good evidence that sugar can actively prevent recovery from alcoholism. In recent years, there has been a lot of cross-pollination between programs that alleviate alcoholism, and hardcore nutritionists.

Typical of the warnings about all this was a 2017 piece called “Bariatric Surgery Stands No Chance against an Untreated Food Addiction.” Among other things, the uncredited writer said,

Like other addictions, food addiction can be triggered by depression, an individual’s desire to fill some type of emotional void, or the need to be able to have control over some part of his or her life. These patients understand that they can no longer turn to food after gastric bypass or other weight loss surgery, but they may be unaware that they have an addictive personality and unconsciously develop another addiction.

Werdell and others have pointed out that alcoholics, drug addicts, and problem eaters all share certain traits. In service of their addictions, they will obsess, binge, isolate, and lie. All the various 12-step groups have membership overlap. The precepts and the successful ways of coping are pretty much the same, which makes the skills transferable to a large extent. Still, when a person gets serious about recovery, sometimes one group is not enough.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Science of Food Addiction,” print only
Source: “Bariatric Surgery Stands No Chance against an Untreated Food Addiction,” DocShop.com, 09/06/17
Image by Everjean/CC BY 2.0

Addiction and Hard Questions

We broke off in the middle of considering an article by H. Ziauddeen and P. C. Fletcher of the University of Cambridge. They were talking about the concept of food addiction, in relation to the “useful indicators of substance dependence.” The building up of tolerance is a famous indicator, with its constant need to increase the amount of substance to achieve the desired effect.

Withdrawal is another term that needs careful consideration. One psychological factor that comes into play is the “expenditure of effort to acquire the addictive substance.” Is stealing a candy bar the same as killing someone for heroin? Is stealing meat less culpable than stealing cupcakes? Is food abuse the same as food dependence? And doesn’t that phrase sound slightly absurd? After all, 100% of humans are food-dependent.

But then, we get back on more solid ground as the authors say,

Substance abuse is characterized by recurrent use of the substance with one or more of the following features: failure to fulfil role obligations, use in harmful situations, consequent legal problems and persistent use despite negative consequences.

Morbidly obese people do put themselves in harmful situations, like, for instance, the risk of losing a job or insurance because of uncontrollable eating. They face social disapproval every time they board an airplane. They lie to loved ones and do crazy things. Here is an anonymous quotation:

I buy a package of ice cream, then eat it all. Then I have to go to the store to buy it again. For a week my family thinks there’s a thing of ice cream in the fridge — but it’s actually five different ones.

Food addiction theory was considered by the Cambridge authors, at that time, as a “rough and incomplete descriptive phenomenon that is unsupported by existing evidence.” They doubted that substance addiction was the best framework for discussing food addiction, and added that if food addiction is to have any clinical value,

[…] it must add something to the treatment of sufferers either in terms of developing/selecting the appropriate psychological therapy or the right pharmacological treatment.

Around the same time, a four-author paper was published that indicated parallels between drug addiction and obesity. Drawing their conclusions from brain imaging studies, they wrote of how both drugs and food come with built-in reinforcing tools. Dopamine squirts out and the brain likes it, and ignores other parts of itself that try to let reason prevail.

Being hooked on food or drugs can both be called…

[…] disorders in which the saliency of a specific type of reward (food or drug) becomes exaggerated relative to, and at the expense of others rewards… The combined results suggest that both obese and drug-addicted individuals suffer from impairments in dopaminergic pathways that regulate neuronal systems associated not only with reward sensitivity and incentive motivation, but also with conditioning, self-control, stress reactivity and interoceptive awareness.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Is food addiction a valid and useful concept?,” Wiley.com, 10/12/12
Source: “Everything You Know About Obesity is Wrong,” HuffingtonPost.com, 09/19/18
Source: “Obesity and addiction: neurobiological overlaps,” Wiley.com, 09/27/12
Image by Alexander Henning Drachmann/CC BY-SA 2.0

Branches of the Question Tree

Is there such a thing as food addiction? Is it a substance addiction or a behavioral addiction, or a combination of the two? Or something else entirely? Could a situation be going on that no one has thought of yet? There must be more to this issue than meets the eye, because it has been discussed for years.

A long article published a decade back posed the question in its title: “Is food addiction a valid and useful concept?” H. Ziauddeen and P. C. Fletcher “explored the theoretical and empirical foundations” of the idea, and the evidence for the addiction model that exists in the realms of neuroscience, and of behavioral and clinical data. The food addiction notion wields “remarkable, and, in our view, unjustified, influence” and “has acquired much currency with relatively little supporting evidence.”

They come down on the side of doubting whether the addiction model is necessary for understanding excessive weight; convinced that it is “unlikely to be a causal pathway in the majority of people with obesity.”

The doubters express three major objections. First, substance addiction is expected to have a clearly identifiable addictive agent, the juice that provably affects the brain. As the authors put it,

[If] we intend to examine the model and its neurobehavioural components, it would be important to categorize precisely what this critical addictive element is.

The equation also involves a presupposition that lab animals react the same as people, which is always open to some degree of doubt. Sure, there have been plenty of experiments with rodents and sugar and other substances. But when it comes to humans and food addiction, the best that its proponents can come up with, as the guilty substance, is “highly processed foods.”

It’s complicated. No one denies that certain classes of foods are deleterious to cardiovascular and metabolic health. But this does not meet the definition of an addictive substance. The issue also has another dimension. Not every heavy drug user becomes addicted. Does anyone even know the “why” of that, yet?

Point being, hyper-palatable foods are everywhere, so now we have to figure out why some people get addicted to them and others do not. According to the researchers,

Food, unlike drugs, is consumed ubiquitously and does not have a simple direct pharmacological action. Therefore, its use and misuse cannot easily be quantified, nor can one identify features of its consumption that indicate a clear transition from use to abuse/addiction…

On the third hand, a decade ago it was not quite so glaringly apparent that really, an enormous number of people become addicted to highly processed foods.

The authors, both of the University of Cambridge, do not say this in so many words, but there seems to be an undercurrent of a suggestion that some people prefer the addiction model, because addiction is an illness, not a crime, and they don’t want to feel guilty or responsible for their own inability to stop eating so much.

(To be continued…)

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Is food addiction a valid and useful concept?,” Wiley.com, 10/12/12
Image by David Abercrombie/CC BY-SA 2.0

Still Hooked

It has been a while since addiction was discussed here, so the object of the next few posts is to catch up with ideas that people have had about the subject, over recent years, in connection with food.

It has been said that “addiction is physical compulsion plus mental obsession plus denial.” The source of that quotation has been removed from the internet, but it sounds fair enough. Physical compulsion alone may not be enough to successfully maintain an addiction. After the Vietnam War, many American troops who had been heavy users of heroin overseas were reportedly able to drop the habit with relative ease, once they were back in the USA.

Another relevant quotation is from renowned writer Anne Lamott:

Addicts and alcoholics will tell you that their recovery began when they woke up in pitiful and degraded enough shape to take Step Zero, which is: “This s— has got to stop.”

The moment of bottoming out also sometimes happens to people in their relationship with food. They pull themselves together and make it through a tough program of body modification, maybe even with surgery and all that involves, and then come face to face with… the rest of their life.

A person who needs to maintain the weight loss is very much like a recovering alcoholic. This is true especially for patients who have achieved their initial weight loss via bariatric surgery. They dare not make a misstep, because if their remaining fraction of a stomach gets stretched, suddenly they are heading down a very slippery slope. They have to be super attentive to the levels of every single substance in their blood, because soaking up enough nutrients is quite a chore for a body that retains only a fraction of a stomach.

It really is a journey

In other words, weight maintenance is like sobriety maintenance, a thing to be done for the rest of their lives, one day at a time, forever. Does that sound grim? Actually, it does. The strictness of the lifestyle is daunting. One thing is certain — for every person who succeeds in maintenance, dozens fail. In fact, there are probably many more recovering alcoholics with five years in than people who have shed a lot of weight and kept it off for the same length of time. This could be seen as evidence that food addiction is even worse than alcohol addiction, and there is near-universal agreement that alcoholism is very bad indeed.

Sprinkled back through time are mentions of the concepts of addictive foods, food addiction, eating addiction, and other related topics. In 2006, a group called FARE, or Food Addiction Research Education was formed and organized the first Food Addiction Summit. Their Q&A page provides a dozen questions and answers. One thing they urge people to do is, get over the idea that sugar is a food, because it isn’t — it’s a drug. And flour is just as bad! They are really and seriously negative toward anything with gluten in it.

Sweeteners, grains and dairy show the greatest potential for addiction. The more refined or processed a food is, the more habit-forming it can become. As with any addictive substance, increased amounts are needed over time to satisfy cravings and avoid symptoms of withdrawal.

On the causative side it is, like most of life’s difficulties, a multi-factorial thing. The page lists 10 different physical and psychological and emotional conditions that can, alone or in combination, push a person into food addiction. On the question of withdrawal, it is real.

Cravings create an urge for more serotonin or dopamine, which only temporarily relieve the discomfort of withdrawal symptoms. As we have mentioned, this is a vicious cycle. And it can lead to life-threatening conditions, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. As with any other drug, the former user may experience grief, depression, excitability, social withdrawal, and anxiety, and the misery can last for months.

(To be continued…)

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Small Victories,” aAamboli.com, undated
Source: “What is food addiction?,” foodAddictionResearch.org, undated
Image by franchise opportunities/CC BY-SA 2.0

System-Roaming Symptoms Find a Voice

Yesterday we quoted Nick Whigham, who made special mention of how annoying long COVID’s “teasing” nature is to its victims. A system-roaming condition turns up where and when it pleases. It doesn’t care if shortness of breath has been your main problem up until now. It arbitrarily decides, instead, to torment your sleep attempts with itchy hands. Long COVID is a tedious game of whack-a mole, with new pains and weaknesses relentlessly turning up and needing to be dealt with.

Much knowledge has been gained from patient groups forming within social media platforms, or by the request of medical staff members at various institutions. One is the Body Politic COVID-19 Support Group, whose newsletter is open to all.

Leora Horwitz, who directs NYU’s Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science, sees a role for the immune system in the overall picture. Journalist Yasmin Tayag paraphrased and quoted Horwitz:

The sheer range of symptoms reported by people with long Covid — more than 200 across 10 groups of organ systems, according to one patient-led survey — makes uncovering their biological origins a gargantuan task. There are likely several subtypes of long Covid, each with its own cluster of symptoms and cause. “We’re not talking about a monolithic, single entity.”

As previously mentioned, long COVID is similar but not identical to other conditions, including ME/CFS, otherwise known as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Black women are particularly susceptible to this ailment, and have long fought for recognition of their peculiar vulnerability to it. Writer Jamie Ducharme explains:

Researchers now believe at least 10% of COVID-19 patients develop long-term symptoms, including some that sound identical to those associated with ME/CFS: constant fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, chronic pain, gastrointestinal distress and more, many of which worsen after exertion. Some researchers now believe the conditions are one and the same, and some Long COVID patients who have been sick at least six months meet diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS.

People who had long been assailed by ME/CFS reached out to long COVID victims to share their hard-won knowledge of how to cope, especially in one important area. These patients are often misadvised by medical personnel, and urged to “push through” their exhaustion and force themselves to exercise. But persistence is not the answer here, or at least not the only answer. It is not the same type of recovery as strengthening a post-operative knee. When these patients give it the old college try, they too often wind up on an emergency room visit that could and should have been avoided.

Another recommended resource is Survivor Corps, which has published useful research. Families might also want to take a look at the Long Covid Kids Support Group, another community exemplifying the self-help and mutual-help movements that have spontaneously sprung up to meet the ever-increasing need.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “’Dying not only worry’: Coronavirus ‘long-hauler’ details horrific symptoms,” Yahoo.com, 08/02/20
Source: “What causes long Covid? Scientists are zeroing in on the answer,” Vox.com, 01/31/22
Source: “Black Women Are Fighting to Be Recognized as Long COVID Patients,” TIME.com, 04/12/21
Image by Mike Towber/CC BY-SA 2.0

FAQs and Media Requests: Click here…

Profiles: Kids Struggling with Weight

Profiles: Kids Struggling with Obesity top bottom

The Book

OVERWEIGHT: What Kids Say explores the obesity problem from the often-overlooked perspective of children struggling with being overweight.

About Dr. Robert A. Pretlow

Dr. Robert A. Pretlow is a pediatrician and childhood obesity specialist. He has been researching and spreading awareness on the childhood obesity epidemic in the US for more than a decade.
You can contact Dr. Pretlow at:

Presentations

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the American Society of Animal Science 2020 Conference
What’s Causing Obesity in Companion Animals and What Can We Do About It

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the World Obesity Federation 2019 Conference:
Food/Eating Addiction and the Displacement Mechanism

Dr. Pretlow’s Multi-Center Clinical Trial Kick-off Speech 2018:
Obesity: Tackling the Root Cause

Dr. Pretlow’s 2017 Workshop on
Treatment of Obesity Using the Addiction Model

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation for
TEC and UNC 2016

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the 2015 Obesity Summit in London, UK.

Dr. Pretlow’s invited keynote at the 2014 European Childhood Obesity Group Congress in Salzburg, Austria.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2013 European Congress on Obesity in Liverpool, UK.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2011 International Conference on Childhood Obesity in Lisbon, Portugal.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2010 Uniting Against Childhood Obesity Conference in Houston, TX.

Food & Health Resources