Where do food cravings come from – and can we stop them?

I once had a problem with this. Once I got a craving for steak. I ate steak six days a week for almost 2 months. Half a year or so later, I had to have Brussels sprouts. I ate big bowls of them 6 days a week for almost a year. I happened to mention this to my doctor who explained that when the body needs certain foods it will crave them. Now I try to eat as balanced a diet as I can.

Still, my utterly uncontrollable craving for ice cream cones has never abated.

Greed and lack of discipline mostly though there are obviously a few who have conditions that make this occur you see.

A craving for steak plus a side of brussels sprouts is a healthy keto friendly diet. Haha! As long as you didn't have ice cream for dessert, you could eat those every day and not get fat.

katsudon: I didn't crave them at the same time and when I was eating them, that's just about all I ate. (Well, except for the ice cream cones.) Interesting factoid: Pavlov (of the famous drooling dogs ) had 3 children aged about 3 years apart from each other. He told them that they could have absolutely anything they wanted to eat, anything, but to tell him what it was. The youngest one started with icing and candy. I don't remember what the other ones wanted, but Pavlov kept careful track of what they ate. After one year all 3 had a perfect diet, their bodies craving what the body needed.

I've no idea what my body was telling me when I ate steak almost exclusively, and I do NOT have a perfect diet now, but when I start to worry about it, I'm off to Dairy Queen.

I happened to mention this to my doctor who explained that when the body needs certain foods it will crave them. 

That is not really the case, cravings are more about what you believe you need than what you actually do.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190524-food-cravings-are-they-a-sign-of-nutritional-deficit

Greed and lack of discipline mostly though there are obviously a few who have conditions that make this occur you see.

The article makes a very good job explaining how you are wrong with your overly reductionist conclusion. There are many different things that affect cravings, from neurological or genetic factors to socioeconomic and cultural predisposition, so it is not as easy as just "lack of discipline".

It is very important to clearly identify which factors are affecting people, then strategies that are actually helpful can be used to resist the cravings, better strategies and lifestyle changes can mean success without relying on a strong willpower.

A craving for steak plus a side of brussels sprouts is a healthy keto friendly diet.

The keto diet is not considered healthy, it has proved to increase several risks for your health, the main justification is that it allows for people to give in cravings for meat, which is the opposite of what the article is talking about.

The keto diet is not considered healthy, it has proved to increase several risks for your health

It makes your breath stink, too.

Mr. virus rex -- It really is the case. You are not a doctor. Or maybe you are. But not a dietitian.

When I have a craving for something healthy, I usually eat it. I don't know if it's my body's way of telling me it needs something in that food, but as it's healthy I go with it.

When I have a craving for junk food, I assume it's the sugar or salt.

It really is the case. 

So when you crave a cigarette or a hit off a crack pipe, is that because your body needs it, or you just really want it?

Mr. virus rex -- It really is the case. You are not a doctor. Or maybe you are. But not a dietitian.

Excellent point.

And correct.

Mr. virus rex -- It really is the case. You are not a doctor. Or maybe you are. But not a dietitian.

The link provided is not about my personal opinion but what has been demonstrated scientifically, there is no evidence cravings come from nutritional deficiencies, instead they come from what the people want to eat or believe they should eat, which is influenced by what they see or the culture they are immersed in.

Do you have any evidence against what the experts say about this? if not they are simply much more trust worthy than a random doctor or dietitian.

Excellent point.

And correct.

Actually, as demonstrated disregarding the reference is if it was a personal opinion is not correct and a terribly bad point.

The keto diet is not considered healthy, it has proved to increase several risks for your health,

Nah, that is a baseless opinion. There is no evidence that a keto diet is unhealthy or has "several risks".

There is no evidence that a keto diet is unhealthy or has "several risks".

Yes there is.

Keto diet risks

A ketogenic diet has numerous risks. Top of the list: it's high in saturated fat. McManus recommends that you keep saturated fats to no more than 7% of your daily calories because of the link to heart disease. And indeed, the keto diet is associated with an increase in "bad" LDL cholesterol, which is also linked to heart disease.

Other potential keto risks include these:

Nutrient deficiency. "If you're not eating a wide variety of vegetables, fruits, and grains, you may be at risk for deficiencies in micronutrients, including selenium, magnesium, phosphorus, and vitamins B and C," McManus says.

Liver problems. With so much fat to metabolize, the diet could make any existing liver conditions worse.

Kidney problems. The kidneys help metabolize protein, and McManus says the keto diet may overload them. (The current recommended intake for protein averages 46 grams per day for women, and 56 grams for men).

Constipation. The keto diet is low in fibrous foods like grains and legumes.

Fuzzy thinking and mood swings. The brain works best when the energy source is sugar from healthy carbohydrates to function. Low-carb diets may cause confusion and irritability.

Those risks add up — so make sure that you talk to a doctor and a registered dietitian before ever attempting a ketogenic diet.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/should-you-try-the-keto-diet

Do you have any respected medical organizations that have said the keto diet is safe, or no/low risk?

Remember, individual hacks are not respected medical organizations, and can safely be discounted.

Do you have any respected medical organizations that have said the keto diet is safe, or no/low risk?

Remember, members of the 'Carnivore and Keto Diets Are Awesome, BRUH!' facebook group self-reporting about how carnivore and keto diets are awesome don't count.

Remember, members of the 'Carnivore and Keto Diets Are Awesome, BRUH!' facebook group self-reporting about how carnivore and keto diets are awesome don't count.

Exactly. Podcast bro science is not science.

Sorry, @Strangerland, you got there before me with your next paragraph.

Nah, that is a baseless opinion. There is no evidence that a keto diet is unhealthy or has "several risks".

You have been repeatedly debunked on this claim, the link from Strangeland is one example in many

https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/health-and-wellness-articles/2023/january/ketogenic-diet-what-are-the-risks

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/dangers-of-keto-diet

You have been challenged many times to bring any example of a respected institution of medical science that says keto is a healthy diet, you have never been able to find any, which is precisely because it is an unhealthy alternative to the best actual diets the medical science recommends. Letting your cravings of meat define what is "healthy" is not a rational proposition, that should be something that results from actual evidence, even if it also means eating things you don't really crave as much.

I rarely have food cravings and if I do I just ignore them. They are usually for not-so-healthy foods.

BMI 30 plus are not in any position to talk. Check. yourself.

Keto diet risks

A ketogenic diet has numerous risks. Top of the list: it's high in saturated fat. McManus recommends that you keep saturated fats to no more than 7% of your daily calories because of the link to heart disease. And indeed, the keto diet is associated with an increase in "bad" LDL cholesterol, which is also linked to heart disease.

Saturated fat, and even the "bad" LDL cholesterol, are increasingly being shown to not be unhealthy or risky. Hopefully, the corporation-funded institutions of medical science will eventually acknowledge this.

Other potential keto risks include these:

Nutrient deficiency. "If you're not eating a wide variety of vegetables, fruits, and grains, you may be at risk for deficiencies in micronutrients, including selenium, magnesium, phosphorus, and vitamins B and C," McManus says.

There is no reason why someone would have any deficiencies in micronutrients on keto. They can still eat plenty of veggies, except perhaps potatoes.

Liver problems. With so much fat to metabolize, the diet could make any existing liver conditions worse.

Kidney problems. The kidneys help metabolize protein, and McManus says the keto diet may overload them. (The current recommended intake for protein averages 46 grams per day for women, and 56 grams for men).

Many of the liver and kidney problems we see today are caused by carbs, not fats. Keto is not high protein.

Fuzzy thinking and mood swings. The brain works best when the energy source is sugar from healthy carbohydrates to function. Low-carb diets may cause confusion and irritability.

That's pure BS. Mood swings and brain fog are much more common on carbs.

Harvard Medical: A ketogenic diet has numerous risks.

Raw Beer: No, Harvard is wrong.

Clearly, Raw Beer, with his references, and well laid out argument is more knowledgeable on this subject than Harvard Medical. The logic in his post is unimpeachable.

As evidenced by all the links he provided to respectable medical organizations claiming the keto diet is healthy.

Is there a conspiracy theory regarding why respected medical institutions don’t recommend Keto diets?

Is there a conspiracy theory regarding why respected medical institutions don’t recommend Keto diets?

Yes. Tune in to Jordan Peterson's next appearance on Joe Rogan to learn the secret passcode, and all will be revealed.

Saturated fat, and even the "bad" LDL cholesterol, are increasingly being shown to not be unhealthy or risky

That is also false, the same as your claim that keto diet had not been reported as unhealthy, it is easy to see which of your claims are unfounded when you are unable to find even one institution on the whole world that support them.

the corporation-funded institutions of medical science will eventually acknowledge this.

Imaginary accusations are no replacement for the lack of data to prove the consensus is wrong, it is either prove the whole scientific and medical community of the world is wrong with evidence or you accept your own claims are unfounded and more than likely wrong. Using fantasy based conspiracies is just excuses for not accepting the consensus, the same thing antiscientific groups like flat earthers do.

There is no reason why someone would have any deficiencies in micronutrients on keto. They can still eat plenty of veggies, except perhaps potatoes.

Compared with the actually recommended diets? of course, in fact that is what is observed epidemiologically which is part of the reasons why the diet is considered unhealthy.

Many of the liver and kidney problems we see today are caused by carbs, not fats. Keto is not high protein.

Still not what is observed and still not a single reference that refutes the links provided, keto is unhealthy.

That's pure BS. Mood swings and brain fog are much more common on carbs.

Just because you say so? because you still have produced no evidence nor reference to refute the links, obviously institutions of science are much more trustworthy than nameless people on the internet that offer no evidence of their claims and that some of them have been proved to be false.

Is there a conspiracy theory regarding why respected medical institutions don’t recommend Keto diets?

Systematic antiscientific bias means there is a conspiracy about anything and everything science have proved. After all it is the last resource of people that find themselves finding only evidence that disprove what they want others to believe.

Yes. Tune in to Jordan Peterson's next appearance on Joe Rogan to learn the secret passcode

Is he still a thing? Is he flogging keto on the circuit these days?

I thought his specialty was pronouns.

Is he still a thing? Is he flogging keto on the circuit these days?

I thought his specialty was pronouns.

Who knows. I thought it was a sick burn, though. Thanks for the set up.

Harvard Medical: A ketogenic diet has numerous risks.

Yeah, they have an opinion piece on their website that mentions the risks, but does it represent the "consensus" opinion of Harvard Medical? The article keeps bringing up McManus (McManus says..., McManus recommends...) but no mention of who or what McManus is -- quality article.

Interestingly, I brought up a few times a peer-reviewed study carried out at Harvard that showed great effectiveness of the carnivore diet against a number of health problems. But those who did not accept that study are somehow willing to accept your Harvard opinion piece.

Is there a conspiracy theory regarding why respected medical institutions don’t recommend Keto diets?

Yes, they get much of their funding from pharma and food companies. That's why, for example, the ADA recently fired an experienced dietitian because they refused to promote a product (artificial sweetener?) manufactured by one of their major funders.

Is there a conspiracy theory regarding why respected medical institutions don’t recommend Keto diets?

Yes

Thought there might be.

Cheers.

Interestingly, I brought up a few times a peer-reviewed study carried out at Harvard that showed great effectiveness of the carnivore diet against a number of health problems. But those who did not accept that study are somehow willing to accept your Harvard opinion piece.

This one, right?

"These findings must be interpreted cautiously in view of several major design limitations. Our survey assessed the perception of individuals following a carnivore diet and did not objectively assess diet, nutrient status, health-related outcomes, or confounding health-associated behaviors; and no physiological or biochemical measurements were obtained."...

"Finally, the generalizability of the findings is unknown owing to the existence of selection bias, because individuals who experienced adverse effects or lack of health benefits are likely to have abandoned the diet and would therefore not have been captured in this survey. Adults adhering to a carnivore diet and responding to this online survey represent a special subpopulation with high levels of motivation and other health-related behaviors (e.g., physical activity, consumption of relatively whole, unprocessed foods). Therefore, respondents likely differ from the general population in ways that could influence the effectiveness, practicality, and safety of a carnivore diet."

(I didn't paste that whole section...it's really long)

https://cdn.nutrition.org/article/S2475-2991(22)10608-6/pdf

https://cdn.nutrition.org/article/S2475-2991(22)10608-6/pdf

Nice paper.

"Contrary to common expectations, adults consuming a carnivore diet experienced few adverse effects and instead reported health benefits and high satisfaction."

Table 3 is impressive!

Nice paper.

"Contrary to common expectations, adults consuming a carnivore diet experienced few adverse effects and instead reported health benefits and high satisfaction."

Table 3 is impressive!

It really is. Read all the way to the end and it'll tell you that the results should be taken with a grain of salt.

Sugar is the source of cravings. No sugar no cravings. Everyone is different for sure, but one avocado, 2 tomatoes and 2 eggs in the morning last me all the way until dinner. No snacks in between.

Yeah, they have an opinion piece on their website that mentions the risks

A scientific conclusion based on clear unequivocal data is not an opinion, specially when no institution disagrees with that conclusion, this is just a misrepresentation you are forced to use when the clear consensus is that keto is unhealthy and comes with risks to the health.

Interestingly, I brought up a few times a peer-reviewed study carried out at Harvard that showed great effectiveness of the carnivore diet against a number of health problems

that is still as false as every time you try to misrepresent an online survey as if it was reporting actual effects, the source you misrepresent only includes what people online reported without any kind of validation, not one test was done by the authors not one value was confirmed.

Yes, they get much of their funding from pharma and food companies. 

Every single institution in the whole world? in every country? yet you never produce evidence of this being the case? that is beyond believabe, just an excuse you try to use when the consensus is clearly against your personal belief.

Nice paper

A collection of self reports without any validation? not really evidence that can rebuke the results of the rest of the literature, at much the conclusions is that people that follow a keto diet like to report being healthy even when the diet has been confirmed to produce serious health problems. Would you be surprised to find out that heavy smokers report being more healthy than the general population when the only thing done is compile their online responses?

Read all the way to the end and it'll tell you that the results should be taken with a grain of salt.

I agree, it's not scientific law carved in stone, but it's at least as solid as any other dietary study.

Yeah, they have an opinion piece on their website that mentions the risks

A scientific conclusion based on clear unequivocal data is not an opinion, 

Did you read the Harvard article? It provides no data, let alone unequivocal data. It just provides the opinion of a certain McManus without even telling who he/she is. So it's even worse than a typical opinion piece because they don't even tell us whose opinion it is.

I agree, it's not scientific law carved in stone, but it's at least as solid as any other dietary study.

I haven't read them all, but I'd be surprised if that were true. Most of them would at least weigh the subjects in person at various points, rather than just ask them what their weight is via email. No, the study is like concluding that 100% of people love Taylor Swift's music by asking a few members of the "We Love Taylor Swift's Music!!" fan club whether or not they love Taylor Swift's music.

All diets have risks if you don’t know what you’re doing. Most people don’t know much about nutrition and requirements their bodies need. Also fail to understand the need for plenty of exercise.

Best way to be healthy is not to diet but to change lifestyle. Eat healthier, don’t eat until you can’t eat any more. Get used to smaller portions, after a few weeks you won’t be able to eat as much.

Make things like biscuits, crisps, chocolate an occasionally treat not a part of the daily diet.

Easier said than done for those who have had bad eating habits for a long time but anyone can do it.

I agree, it's not scientific law carved in stone, but it's at least as solid as any other dietary study.

No, it is not that is the whole point, automatically assuming everything a group of people invested in a measure reports about it is not anywhere as valuable as actually measuring those values and validating if it has any value. The studies that measured the patient found the opposite of this study, which means the only thing that can be concluded is that people that want to promote a diet tend to report they do much better than what they can objectively be proved to do.

@virusrex, sorry but in this case you don't know what you are talking about. Well intentioned people are giving terrible nutrition advice that's causing real harm.

If you want to educate yourself on the keto diet, try watching YouTube videos by Dr. Eric Westman, Dr. Paul Mason, or Dr. Ken Berry.

Most nutrition research is funded by groups that are pushing an agenda for monetary or religious reasons. Just because something comes out from Harvard doesn't mean you should trust it. You can read about some of the history in "The Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz.

No, it is not that is the whole point, automatically assuming everything a group of people invested in a measure reports about it is not anywhere as valuable as actually measuring those values and validating if it has any value. 

The experts in the industry disagree with your opinion that there are no benefits of the keto diet.

10 Health Benefits of Low-Carb and Ketogenic Diets

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/10-benefits-of-low-carb-ketogenic-diets

The experts in the industry disagree with your opinion that there are no benefits of the keto diet.

From Healthline.com:

The Healthline team is committed to bringing you accurate, trustworthy, and unbiased health information. Each piece of content is developed by our in-house editorial team in partnership with expert writers, medical reviewers, and fact checkers. We appreciate your curiosity about our editorial process and are proud to share our rigorous standards with you.

An in-house editorial team are experts? Um... they're journalists.

Can you link to an organization of respected experts in the field of health medicine that have stated that the keto diet is healthy and safe as a long term diet?

You've posted a magazine article.

@virusrex, sorry but in this case you don't know what you are talking about. Well intentioned people are giving terrible nutrition advice that's causing real harm.

Since you make not even an effort to argue against the many references provided, that would mean you are part of the people that is giving terrible nutrition advice. Just because you want to believe something that does not make the consensus of science wrong when it says keto is unhealthy and risky, and since much better options are available it is not worth it.

If you want to educate yourself on the keto diet, try watching YouTube videos by Dr. Eric Westman, Dr. Paul Mason, or Dr. Ken Berry.

So you think that the whole consensus of science that includes every single respected institution on the field stops being true when people that directly profit from recommending the diet say so? even when they are also not making any effort to refute the huge amount of evidence available that proves the risks that come with the diet? Sorry but that is not a rational proposition, you can find "professionals" that defend any kind of fringe or even well debunked things, but listening to them is not education, it is just being exposed to misinformation (and in some cases clear disinformation).

Most nutrition research is funded by groups that are pushing an agenda for monetary or religious reasons.

That is just the same old excuse all antiscientific propaganda groups use to "explain" why the evidence and scientific consensus of the world contradicts their beliefs, from flat earthers to spirit healers, unless you can make actual scientific arguments against the evidence that proves keto is risky and unhealthy you have no argument, just an impossible global conspiracy that includes every professional and expert in the field except for those that say what you want to hear.

The experts in the industry disagree with your opinion that there are no benefits of the keto diet.

Can you quote me when I say there are no benefits?

Of course not, that is because this is a baseless claim you made up to avoid arguing about what I actually wrote since you could not find any argument against it, so you have to imagine something to contradict.

Keto is unhealthy and risky, and since there are much better diets that offer all the benefits and more, without the risks that come with keto, it means they are the much more preferable options. Everything has "benefits" even smoking, the actual important thing is if the benefits outweigh the risk, for keto this is not the case and that is why it is not recommended by the professionals.

in this case you don't know what you are talking about. Well intentioned people are giving terrible nutrition advice that's causing real harm.

Do you have any links to any respected medical organizations pushing the same approaches to diet that you are?

Most nutrition research is funded by groups that are pushing an agenda for monetary or religious reasons. Just because something comes out from Harvard doesn't mean you should trust it. You can read about some of the history in "The Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz.

Any respected medical organizations that have come to the same conclusions as this Teicholz, or is she coming up with this opinion all on her own?

If it's the latter, well she's a random person, who may or may not be motivated by book sales, and may or may not be competent.

Whereas respected medical organizations are respected because they have earned that respect.

Interesting how many here will take the words of McManus as gospel, and claim his/her words are based on clear unequivocal data, yet they have no idea who McManus is.

Also, they will continuously insist that only the opinion of "respected institutions of science/medicine" are valid. It is becoming increasingly obvious that these institutions have been captured; they are more concerned with profits than on citizens' health. Any member of such organizations who does not promote the products of their funders (or goes against their narrative) is eliminated.

Corporations (pharma and food) control much of the narrative in these institutions and the MSM.

Interesting how many here will take the words of McManus as gospel, and claim his/her words are based on clear unequivocal data, yet they have no idea who McManus is.

Harvard.

Notice how you can't name any respected medical organizations that are saying the keto diet is healthy?

Corporations (pharma and food) control much of the narrative in these institutions and the MSM.

And your author wants to sell books and made up stuff.

See how anything can have doubt cast on it? That's why you look for respected organizations and see what they say.

Interesting how many here will take the words of McManus as gospel

Nobody thinks so, someone making commentary on an article from a scientific source do not make that commentary the sole basis for that article, that is still a terribly obvious misrepresentation. You have not yet produced one single institution on the whole world that recommends keto as healthy, yet you insist that this is so purely because that is what you want to believe and disregard all the scientific institutions that prove otherwise using a completely accesory part of one of the references as if it was the basis.

Also, they will continuously insist that only the opinion of "respected institutions of science/medicine" are valid.

When confronted against no evidence whatsoever, sure, that is their role and what they are known for by the scientific community. I mean pretending that the whole scientific community of the world is wrong just becaue they can prove the diet you like is unhealthy is irrational and frankly not something that anybody can believe.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that these institutions have been captured;

On the contrary what is completely obvious is that this is the final excuse for any antiscientific claim when the complete lack of support from the experts and the available evidence is clear. Flat-earth? Hand imposition and prayer to cure cancer? extraterrestrials reading your mind? keto is healthy? all true and anybody that can prove otherwise is automatically labeled as "captured" (without any evidence). Not really an argument when it can be used to "prove" even the most obvious fantasies.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that these institutions have been captured;

Only on the podcasts. No respectable group of intelligent people is making these claims of conspiracy, only podcasters have that theory.

StrangerlandToday  01:33 pm JST

It is becoming increasingly obvious that these institutions have been captured;

Only on the podcasts. No respectable group of intelligent people is making these claims of conspiracy, only podcasters have that theory.

So you're claiming that individual doctors, who've studied medicine formally and have relevant qualifications, and understand the meaning of the objective scientific tests they run, such as blood work and so on, and get to see their patients face to face, and can discern suitable treatments for them - dietary being one - have no idea what they're on about? The same doctors who get regular visits from pharma sales reps to push their products armed with study results that blur the lines between absolute and relative risk? The same doctors who report threats of retribution against anyone who dares to speak out of turn against a revolving-door health administration system?

Nah, it's all just conspiracy theory talk. Nobody in their right mind would think anything untoward goes on. Science and scientists are incorruptible.

So you're claiming that individual doctors, who've studied medicine formally and have relevant qualifications, and understand the meaning of the objective scientific tests they run, such as blood work and so on, and get to see their patients face to face, and can discern suitable treatments for them - dietary being one - have no idea what they're on about?

I'm claiming that if they did, their views would be backed by respected medical organizations.

The fact that not a single respectable medical organization is backing these views is very telling.

it's all just conspiracy theory talk.

Yep. Just sayin'.

So you're claiming that individual doctors, who've studied medicine formally and have relevant qualifications, and understand the meaning of the objective scientific tests they run, such as blood work and so on, and get to see their patients face to face, and can discern suitable treatments for them - dietary being one - have no idea what they're on about?

When they contradict what the medical and scientific communities of the world can prove without providing any evidence of their own? definitely. They are acting unprofessionally and against the best interest of their patients.

The article is very clear about what cravings are, and how best to resist them when it has been proved those cravings have a negative effect in your health. If an individual doctor say instead that you can ignore the science that prove those negative effects because they assure you there is no problem (but they can't disprove those negative effects), then the best course of action is to ignore those individuals since they are not acting as they should. This is the era where anybody can publish their data and analysis for everybody else to criticize and confirm.

The worst ones just treat their patients as numbers and push whatever the hot pharma rep recommends, and don't spend the extra time and effort trying to get to the bottom of what causes their patients' ailments.

Some of them. Others are in a healthcare system that doesn't afford them the flexibility to do otherwise.

What does this have to do with you not having a single reputable medical organization to support the assertions being made by the podcast bro science followers in this thread?