Ultra-processed foods high in fat and sugar may be addictive, in part, due to their purported ability to induce an exaggerated post-ingestive brain dopamine response akin to drugs of abuse.
Using standard [11C]raclopride positron emission tomography (PET) displacement methods used to measure brain dopamine responses to addictive drugs, we measured post-ingestive striatal dopamine responses to an ultra-processed milkshake high in fat and sugar in 50 young, healthy adults over a wide body mass index (BMI 20–45 kg/m2).
Surprisingly, milkshake consumption did not result in a statistically-significant post-ingestive dopamine response in the striatum (p = 0.62) nor any striatal sub-region (p > 0.33) and the highly variable interindividual responses were not statistically-significantly related to adiposity (BMI: r = 0.076, p = 0.51; % body fat: r = 0.16, p = 0.28).
Thus, post-ingestive striatal dopamine responses to an ultra-processed milkshake were likely substantially smaller than many addictive drugs and below the limits of detection using standard PET methods.
![Figure 1: (A) An ultra-processed milkshake did not statistically-significantly impact [11C]raclopride binding potential (D2BPralco) across the whole sample (<em>n</em> = 50) in whole striatum. (B) Distribution of% change between fasting D2BP~ralco~ and D2BP~ralco~ after consumption of milkshake, with individuals displaying dopamine release (green, left, “Responders”, n = 29) and those who did not (purple, right, “Non-responders”, n = 21). (C) Those classified as milkshake “Responders” rated the milkshake as more pleasant (0=“neutral”, 100=“extremely pleasant”) (D) and reported greater wanting (0=“I don’t want any more”, 100=“I want much more of the milkshake”) (E) but similar levels of hunger after an overnight fast compared to “Non-responders”.](/doc/exercise/2024-darcey-figure1-largeindividualdifferencesinbrainandcravingresponsetomilkshake.jpg)
(A) An ultra-processed milkshake did not statistically-significantly impact [11C]raclopride binding potential (D2BPralco) across the whole sample (n = 50) in whole striatum.
(B) Distribution of% change between fasting D2BPralco and D2BPralco after consumption of milkshake, with individuals displaying dopamine release (green, left, “Responders”, n = 29) and those who did not (purple, right, “Non-responders”, n = 21).
(C) Those classified as milkshake “Responders” rated the milkshake as more pleasant (0=“neutral”, 100=“extremely pleasant”)
(D) and reported greater wanting (0=“I don’t want any more”, 100=“I want much more of the milkshake”)
(E) but similar levels of hunger after an overnight fast compared to “Non-responders”.
[You see individuals range all the way from −20% to +40% on brain response! No wonder it cancels out to an average of ~0. Nevertheless, the −20% guy is living in a different world from the +40% guy. To emphasize the non-statistical-significance of the group-level results and ignore the ‘highly variable’ part is to miss the forest for the trees and deny their lived experiences, if you will.
Or similarly for the 3 liking ratings: sure, there’s a mean average difference of some-but-not-that-much (this time at least ‘statistically-significant’)… but look at all those implied milkshake-responders way up there past most of the non-responders on cravings for more milkshake!]