The Path to Enough

This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedanta. It seems like the simplest choice in the world. Given the option between pain and pleasure, we ought to choose pleasure. Is it better to be hungry or full, better to be tired or alert, better to watch another episode of our favorite TV show or do the dishes? It isn't just our own minds that tell us to choose the path of enjoyment and indulgence. Our friends remind us that life is short. Say no to dessert or another round of drinks and someone might call you a spoil sport. At Stanford University, psychiatrist Anna Lemke has heard the same messages. But as a scientist, she's also studied the way our brains balance pain and pleasure. The two sit on opposite ends of a neural seesaw and the brain constantly attempts to bring them into equilibrium or what is known as homeostasis. When we press down hard and often on the pleasure side of the seesaw, triggering bursts of the neurotransmitter dopamine, Anna says the brain automatically compensates by pressing down on the other side, producing a dopamine deficit. Over time, as people press down too much or too often on the pleasure side of the equation, the brain compensates so forcefully that we start to walk around with a chronic dopamine deficit. This can manifest as anxiety, irritability and depression. There is complex neurochemistry behind the process of homeostasis, but Anna has come up with a simple way to visualize this. When you press down on one side of the seesaw, imagine a bunch of gremlins inside your head jumping on the other side of the seesaw. We explore how this mechanism works and why it exists in our previous episode. If you missed it, I strongly suggest you listen to it first. Today, we continue with the second part of our story about the paradoxical effects of pleasure. And we ask what it means to live a life of balance and harmony. How to work with the brain rather than against it this week on Hidden Brain. Support for Hidden Brain comes from hotels.com. Make your next trip work for you. hotels.com's new Savioway feature lets you choose between instant savings now or banking rewards for later. It's a flexible rewards program that puts you in control with no confusing math or black out dates. Book now at hotels.com. Savioway is available to loyalty members in the US and UK on hotels with member prices. Other terms apply. See site for details. Anna Lemke is a psychiatrist at Stanford University. She has worked with many patients who have addictions, not just to drugs like cocaine and heroin, but to everyday activities taken to excess. She has treated patients with a range of out of control indulgences, from eating and drinking, to online shopping and sports betting. Around the time she turned 40, Anna found herself in the grip of an addiction. She was consumed with romance novels and erotic. Anna note that this next part of the discussion involves references to sex. At one point she found herself swept up in the novel, 50 Shades of Grey. The story, later made into a movie, revolves around a sadomasochistic relationship between a college student and a business tycoon. There's some people who say that I don't have a heart at all. Why would they say that? Because they know me well. Do you have any interest outside of work? Enjoy various physical pursuits. You're unmarried. I asked Anna, what drew her to the book? I'm honestly not even sure I know, because it didn't really matter when I was reading it. That is to say like the plot and the characters matter not at all. I was reading it for the sex scenes. You know, embarrassing to admit that, but it's true. But I remember rationalizing it to myself as a modern day pride and prejudice. But you know, not really. Yeah, you don't think Jane Austen would have written 50 Shades of Grey. Don't think so. No, don't think so. So at a certain point, Anna, you started to see that your enjoyment of romance novels and fantasy had tipped over from entertainment to something more potent. Why did you have this realization as you were reading 50 Shades of Grey? I remember it vividly. It was about three in the morning on a weeknight. Well past the hour I should have been sleeping, so that I could be prepared for the next day to come. And I got to a scene where, you know, the characters were using say to massacistic sex toys. And I just thought to myself, how did I get here? What am I doing? That's not anything that I'm into or even interested in. It was this sort of like, where am I? And how did this happen? And I decided, that's it. This is something is going seriously right here. I need to look at this problem. Anna eventually came to realize that her own engagement with romance novels and erotica had something in common with the addictions she was treating in her patients. When she was reading, she would become so engrossed that it felt like she was in a trance. You can see this among people who have addictions to sports betting or pornography. You can see it among heavy users of YouTube or social media platforms like TikTok. And of course, you can see it in the way people disappear into their phones. Anna said she would lose track of time. And you know, we want to be in a trance. And I think that's something we have to admit to ourselves. We want to escape ourselves. And I think part of that is a function of this incredibly narcissistic society that we've lived in where we're so preoccupied with ourselves and our problems and our achievements. Like we're desperate to get away from ourselves. Plus, you know, you have all these amazing drugs that make that possible. So a turning point in your life came in 2011 during an encounter you had with a young resident who was training to be a psychiatrist. Tell me what happened and how it came about. Yeah, so this was a, you know, lovely young student of mine, Dr. in his residency for psychiatry. And I was teaching a small group of residents how to do something called motivational interviewing, which is a way of harnessing the patient's own motivation to change their behavior. So we got into these pairs so that one could role play the psychiatrist and the other could role play the patient. And the patient could talk about a behavior that they want to change and the psychiatrist could do this motivational interviewing to try to explore how to help them do that. And you know, we had an odd number. So that means that I had to pair with the student in order to do the role play. So he said, well, I'll be the psychiatrist. I said, okay, I'll be the patient. And he said, you know, is there a behavior you'd like to change? And I just sort of said without even thinking about it, yeah, you know, there's some, I do some late night reading that I'd like to change. And an unusual motivational interview, he said, well, why is it that you want to change that behavior? Right, you're trying to explore with the patient what their reasons are. And I said, well, you know, I just think it's gotten into a bad habit. It's interfering with my sleep. It's interfering with my ability to be present, you know, just sort of vague generalities. I did not tell him what specific genre of book I was struggling with. So then he asked me, what would you be giving up if you stopped that behavior? And I said, I would be giving up the intense pleasure and feeling of escape that I get from reading. But then when I said that, I realized, yeah, but those things are not as important to me as being present for my husband and for my children, for being, you know, invested in and good at the work that I do. So I find it so striking and also so revealing on that it took an actual conversation with someone asked you a simple question and you had to answer aloud for you to see something about yourself. I mean, you're the trained psychiatrist. You're supposed to have insight. And I think it just shows how difficult it is for all of us to see ourselves clearly. Yeah, isn't that amazing? And it is striking and a bit of a mystery, frankly, as to why putting into words what we're doing, especially telling another live human, has this remarkable ability to penetrate our lack of awareness and make us aware in a way that also then greatly enables our ability to change that behavior. So did the conversation end there or did the two of you come up with a plan for what you could do to change your behavior? The conversation as I'm recalling it went on a little bit longer, but not much longer, frankly. So so then he asked a very simple question. He said, well, what's one thing you could do to take a step toward changing that behavior? And I thought, well, I could get rid of my Kindle because my Kindle gives me such incredible z-access to these downloadable reads, including free reads from Amazon that if I got rid of it, it would create a barrier between me and the romance novel so that I'd have to do more work to get it. So that's what I decided to do. So how did that go? Did you just quit Coltoki? Once I had had that conversation with him and I thought about it the next day, I had a moment where I realized, oh, wow, I think I've developed a minor addiction to romance novels and eroticum. And so then I essentially made a decision to do what I recommend my patients do, which is abstain for four weeks, got rid of the Kindle, and just made a strong commitment to not reading romance novels and eroticum. But what shocked me was that very night, which was the first 24-hour period of my not engaging in romance novel reading as a way to put myself to sleep, I was gripped by anxiety and restlessness and agitation. And I was surprised, right? Because I, first of all, didn't think there would be a huge physiologic or even psychological response, but I experienced withdrawal, the same kind of withdrawal that my patients described. Wow. I had a very difficult time putting myself to sleep. And so it was extremely difficult. I lay awake for several hours and finally I was able to put myself to sleep. And that went on for about 10 to 14 days. So in fact, it was the process of trying to give it up that really brought home to me how addicted I had become. What happened at the end of the month? I felt much better and I thought to myself, I'm good. Now I'm going to go back to reading romance novels now and then in a very rational and tempered way and we're all going to be fine here. And so I went and, you know, I got some book and I completely binge. I spent the whole weekend reading all day every day and late into the night on Sunday, went to work gliaria and Monday and I realized, wow, that was a complete mess. And it's clear that whatever those circuits are that have been kindled in my brain, they're still kindled and that a month is not sufficient. And I need to recommit to a longer period of absence. And that's what I did. I recommitted to a year of abstinence from romance novels, erotica of any sort. One of the things that's hardest about problems involving the mind is that we need our minds to battle the problems we have with our minds. Imagine trying to fix a broken toaster and the only tool you have is a very same broken toaster. When we come back, how to reset our relationship to pain and pleasure in a way that produces enduring satisfaction. You're listening to Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedantam. This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedantam. In our previous episode, which I highly recommend you listen to if you haven't heard it yet, Stanford University psychiatrist Anna Lemke explained how our minds come with an internal seesaw. It's designed to keep things in balance to achieve what is called homeostasis. When you bite into a delicious dessert or bet on a sports game and wait excitedly for the result, you're pressing on the pleasure side of the seesaw. You trigger a burst of dopamine. To return to balance, the brain compensates by pressing down on the other side of the seesaw. Over time, if we press too hard or too often on the pleasure side, the brain starts to compensate more and more forcefully, leaving us with a dopamine deficit. This can leave us feeling down and miserable and prompt us to go find our next jolt of pleasure. You can see how this quickly can become a vicious cycle. Anna, it's clear that simply seeking out more pleasure and more intense pleasure or more constant pleasure is not the answer. You often recommend something that you call a dopamine fast to your patients. How does it work? Well, the dopamine fast is a little bit of a misnomer in the sense that we're not actually ingesting dopamine. In fact, what we're doing is using substances and behaviors that trigger the release or increase in firing in dopamine that we make in our brain. The dopamine fast refers to is to abstain from the substance or behavior for long enough for our brain to get the memo, oh, wait a minute, I'm not getting this external source anymore. It's time for me to start to make more of my own endogenous or in a dopamine to up-regulate our dopamine receptors and increase dopamine transmission. Because in response to substances and behaviors that release a lot of dopamine in our brain, this fire hose of dopamine, what our brains essentially do is down-regulate dopamine transmission, not just a baseline, but below baseline, which is this state that's really akin to a clinical depression. There is an important caveat to this recommendation. The more severe the addiction, the more a dopamine fast would produce painful symptoms known as withdrawal. In some cases, withdrawal can be so severe that it can pose medical risks of its own. Anybody with a severe addiction is going to need medical supervision and support, and especially if they're physiologically dependent to a chemical like alcohol or benzodiazepines or opioids, such that they would be at risk for life threatening withdrawal. Because essentially what happens in withdrawal is that we experience the opposite of whatever that drug does for us. With sedatives like alcohol, opioids, and benzos, we can experience a physiologic storm, including life threatening seizures. Individuals who are struggling with that kind of severe chemical dependency should not just quit cold turkey. They need medically monitored detoxification or tapering in order to get off of their drug of choice. The principle is still the same, that they need to get off of that chemical in order to allow their brain to heal. You once treated a patient whom you called the Laila, a young woman who was a heavy user of cannabis. You broached the idea of a dopamine fast to her, and what was her reaction? First of all, she came to me seeking help for anxiety and depression, not seeking help for cannabis. In fact, she identified cannabis as the only thing that helped with her anxiety. She wanted me to prescribe a pill or offer some kind of psychotherapy that would help with her anxiety and depression. What I said to her, which is what I say to many people who now come to me wanting help with anxiety and depression and other psychiatric symptoms, whom I discover are using hydropomy rewards excessively, is that instead of prescribing them a pill or recommending any kind of psychotherapy, what I invite them to do is to engage in an experiment, which is the dopamine fast for four weeks in order to reset reward pathways, because there's a possibility, I tell them, that just by doing that alone, their anxiety and depression may get substantially better without having to do any other intervention. So that's what I suggested to do, Ila. So you see that four weeks of abstention are also necessary to begin to see one's life more clearly, to accurately perceive cause and effect when it comes to our moods and the things that are bringing us up and down. What do you mean by that? And how do that work out with Delilah? When we're chasing dopamine, it's very difficult to see the true impact of our drug of choice, whether a substance or behavior on our lives. All we see is the immediate relief that we get from it. We're not able to see that over time, what's happening is that we're changing our brains in a way that's probably exacerbating the problem we're trying to solve. So I suggested to Delilah that she try giving up cannabis for a month in order to reset her reward pathways. And what she said to me is, why would I do that? Cannabis is the only thing that helps with my anxiety. And I said to her, I hear you that in the moment you get relief from the cannabis, but what I suggest to you is that what you're really doing is meditating with Jal from the last dose, rather than treating your underlying anxiety disorder. And that in fact, what the cannabis is doing over time is changing your hedonic or joy set point such that now you need more and more cannabis to feel any pleasure at all. And in fact, what I see is that people who use cannabis that the pot can actually start to do the opposite and make them more anxious and even paranoid over time. And still, she was not interested in stopping. She said, you know, maybe someday, but not now. And then I do something that I often do with patients and I try to get them to look at the larger timeline of their lives. So I said to her, well, I hear you that you're not interested in stopping now. When do you think you do want to change the way you're using cannabis? Do you think you want to be smoking the way you are now in 10 years? She immediately responded, nope, I definitely won't be smoking this way in 10 years. You know, implying that there was something about her current use that she could admit was not healthy. So I said to her, okay, well, you don't want to be smoking this way in 10 years. How about five years? She says, now I don't want to be smoking this way in five years. And I said, okay, how about in a year? And then she stopped and kind of thought about it. She said, okay, I get where you're going with this stock. You're basically telling me if I don't want to be doing it in 10 years or five years or a year from now, why not try stopping now? And I said exactly. And then she agreed to do it. And how did it tone up? It was really interesting. She came back four weeks later and she said, Dr. Lamkey, you wouldn't believe it. And this is what's so funny. The patients will always say, you wouldn't believe it as if I'm going to be shocked. I said, tell me. She goes, well, first of all, stopping pot made me realize that I had been addicted to pot, something I really didn't realize before. And I said, well, how did you realize that? And she said, well, first of all, the first week I was vomiting violently. So remember that withdrawal is the opposite, both psychologically and physiologically, from whatever the drug was doing for us. And we know that cannabis can be an anti-matic or an anti-nazha kind of effect. So when she stopped using it, she started vomiting. And that was the signal to her that her body had been changed by her chronic heavy use. More even in her case than the increased, temporarily increased anxiety and insomnia, which I had warned her about. And then she said, and you wouldn't believe it, but I feel so much better now after four weeks of stopping than I have in a really long time. I feel less anxious. I feel less depressed. I'm more able to enjoy things. I can breathe better. I feel physically better. I'm sleeping better. And this happens again and again and again. We see this so often in clinical care. And people are so surprised because when we're in it, we don't see the harm. All we know is that, oh, God, smoking this joint makes me feel better after a long hard day. We can't see the ways in which the cumulative effects actually are making us feel worse. So this is not the only client who discovered that the symptoms she thought she was treating with the drug might actually have been caused by the drug. I understand that there has been research on this front, not just looking at individual patients, but a classic study conducted with a group of alcoholic men who also had clinical depression. Tell me about that study and what it found on it. Yeah. So this is a famous study by Brown and Schuckett, where they took a group of adult men who met clinical criteria for alcoholism and also met clinical criteria for major depressive episodes. They put them in the hospital for four weeks during which time they had no access to alcohol. They made sure they didn't have life that threatening withdrawal, but also during which time they gave them no specific or general treatment for major depression. And what they found is at the end of those four weeks, 80% of those individuals no longer met criteria for major depressive episode. In other words, just stopping drinking resolved their depression. And that is very consistent with what we see clinically, people who have anxiety, depression, omnia, and attention, just by stopping their substance or behavior of choice for four weeks largely resolves many of those symptoms in about 80% of patients who come in. I mean, this is consistent with your larger hypothesis that this is the plenty paradox at work that the overabundance of things that trigger dopamine in our heads is causing those gremlins in our brain to lean so hard on the other side of the teetototter that now we We are walking around feeling depressed and anxious. And if we try and just get back to equilibrium, we're going to feel much better. And when we're not chasing those highs anymore to get rid of our feelings of depression. Yeah, exactly. I mean, we're clearly in the midst of a severe mental health crisis, especially affecting our youth. And there's lots of speculation for why that is. And hypothesis that I would, you know, I've put forward is this idea that the source of our on happiness is in fact our relentless pursuit of pleasure, the many drugified things in our world today that make that possible. And the ways that our brains are trying to compensate for that by actually going into this dopamine deficit state, which is very similar to clinical depression or anxiety insomnia, et cetera. So one of the most important claims that you're making here is that the sea of plenty in which many of us find ourselves in nowadays is causally responsible for the fact that many of us actually might be more unhappy than we were 30 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago. Are we sure that there is a causal connection between those two things? And if so, how will we show off that, Anna? It's a hypothesis based on inference, but let me tell you what the data points are. First of all, when you look at happiness surveys, about 50 years ago, you could track that people who were living in wealthier nations were more happy than people living in poor nations and that they were getting happier over time. Starting about 20 years ago, people in the richest countries in the world started to be less and less happy. Now what the cause of that is, we don't know for sure, but you could make the inference it as I have done that we reach some kind of tipping point in terms of abundance where what started out as a good thing became an overabundance and is actually contributing now to our suffering. And by the way, that holds true also for increasing rates of depression, anxiety and suicide all over the world, which are going up all over the world, but which are rising fastest in the wealthiest nations. So again, this kind of plenty paradox. You have even here in the United States rising rates of anxiety, depression and suicidal thinking among teenagers corresponding specifically with the past 20 years and the increasing amounts of time that people are spending on the internet and consuming digital media. And then you have a much smaller data point, which is what we see clinically when we intervene and ask people to stop ingesting these high-roared substances and behaviors, people who come in seeking help for anxiety, depression and suicidal thinking. And what we find is that their anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts in the vast majority get better without having to do anything else other than cut out for a period of time their high dopamine substances and behaviors. When we come back, techniques to get addictive behaviors under control and the crucial role that relationships and community can play in helping us to reset our brains. You're listening to Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta. This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta. Psychiatrist Anna Lemke is the author of Dopamine Nation, Finding Balance in the Age of Indulgence. She argues that when we seek out pleasures on a non-stop basis, whether those pleasures are legal indulgences or illegal substances, we mess with the neurochemistry of the brain. But paradoxically, the more we chase pleasure, the more the brain tries to compensate, leaving us in a dopamine depleted state. Anna recommends multiple techniques to help get indulgences under control. She calls these self-binding techniques. Self-binding techniques create both literal and medicative barriers between ourselves and our substance or behavior of choice so that we can press the pause button between desire and consumption. There are many different ways to do that. I sort of organize it into time-space and meaning to give us a fighting chance to be able to abstain. So what would some of these look like? For example, the physical or spatial self-binding that you talk about, what does that look like? That looks like, for example, not having the substance in the house, if it's alcohol or potato chips or cookies or whatever it is not having it in the house is a really simple one. My patients talk about when they travel, calling the hotel in advance and having the hotel remove the mini-bar from the room, in some cases remove the mini-bar and the television set. So there's not access to the kind of cable channels that make people vulnerable. I've had patients use things like the kitchen safe, you know, so that they lock their device in there, they can't get it out for a certain period of time. It could also sometimes help to decide when you are going to engage in an activity. So this is the way to use time as a self-binding construct. What I think is really interesting is the way that we essentially organize our time around the rewards in the modern world, in a way that I think is unprecedented. You know, we sort of look forward to our coffee in the morning and then we can't wait to get home at night and watch our shows. And so what I ask patients to do is to be aware of that and then use time to their advantage. For example, if they've done the dopamine fast and now they want to go back to using their substance or behavior, but they want to use in moderation, they could commit to, for example, only playing video games two days a week, two hours a day and specify when that is. Or if they want to have some mindless scrolling on social media, they can say, okay, I'm going to dedicate a half hour a day and this is when it's going to be. And then I know I'm going to do mindless scrolling on YouTube watching, but outside of that, I'm not going to do that. Or I'm going to wait till I finish this exam or turn in my paper, get this job promotion, and then to use that as a way to bind themselves. I understand you had a patient Mitch who was addicted to sports gambling, and he had to take some pretty extreme measures to bind himself, to keep himself from using his drug of choice. Yeah, so he had to do something called self-banning, where he basically went to the casinos and put him on a himself on a band list, which is very common among pathological gamblers, pathological sports bettors. It's really hard with the new online apps, but you can also ban yourself on an online app. The other thing that he did was he avoided what I call the stepping stone effect, where certain behaviors are not necessarily our substance or behavior of choice, but they're a stepping stone to it. So he realized that he couldn't really watch sports in any capacity. He couldn't read about sports in the paper. He couldn't listen to sports radio. He couldn't watch sports on television or on the computer, because as soon as he did that, the cravings to bet were just overwhelming. I mean, this is like people who have let's say an alcohol dependence problem and you know, you're taught, don't walk by the bar on your way home from work, take a different route. So in other words, the things that you put in your environment end up shaping the choices that you make. Oh, absolutely. Such a key point, to expect ourselves to be able to change without changing our environment, in a dopamine overloaded world, is just expecting us to not be human. I deal with a lot of families where the kids are addicted to video games or social media. And the parents are like, I don't know why he just won't stop or she just won't stop. Meanwhile, their house is like fiber optic, high speed internet. They've got a screen in every room, in every bedroom. Everybody's got 12 devices. I mean, that no, right? No, and also it's school's huge problem. Like, you know, the kids are allowed to have their phone that during class, how can a teacher possibly compete with YouTube? There's no way. So one of the most radical suggestions that you have and radical in the sense that I think it would appear to many people to be very counterintuitive and how to digest is that one way to deal with compulsive overconsumption is to actively seek out its opposite. You say that we should deliberately seek out experiences of pain and hardship. Now, most of us try our best to avoid pain. Why would we choose to deliberately invite pain into our lives? Yeah, I know this sounds really wackadoodle, but there's actually science behind it. It's the science of hormesis and hormesis is Greek for to set in motion. And what we're talking about is very mild to moderate doses of adaptive or healthy pain as tolerated. And if you don't like the word pain, maybe use the word discomfort or challenge or something along those lines, although often it does involve, you know, some physical duress at the right doses to up-regulate our own healing mechanisms, but not so much that it causes irreversible harm. And what the science of hormesis shows in humans and in animals is that if you expose an organism to mild to moderate doses of painful, toxic, or noxious stimuli, you will actually make that organism healthier or resilient or robust. And we have evidence for that overwhelming evidence for that through exercise, but also some emerging evidence for ice-cold water plunges. There's also some evidence showing that prayer and meditation, which, you know, are not necessarily painful, but do require effortful engagement and a certain kind of concentration, which is not immediately necessarily pleasurable. That all that those behaviors also release dopamine, things like exposure therapy, forcing ourselves to do things that make us psychologically uncomfortable. These are all things that are hard in the initial experience, but essentially trigger our body to sense injury and in sensing injury, our bodies start to up-regulate our protective hormones like, again, our endogenous opioids, all ultimately leading to the release of dopamine. So it's a really great way to overall reset our hedonic or joy threshold to the side of pleasure, which means that we're more resilient in the face of pain and we're generally happier. Let me summarize what you're saying and make sure I'm understanding this correctly. You're basically saying your central argument here is that there is a system in the brain that tries to maintain homeostasis. When we press down on the pleasure side of the balance, the brain gremlins get on the pain side of the balance or try and compensate it in recover equilibrium. But if we were to press down on the pain side of the balance, now homeostasis starts to work in some ways in our favor because the gremlins hop onto the pleasure side of the balance and they basically get us to a state where we're feeling better on average than we were doing before. That's exactly right. And there is overwhelming evidence to support this. So for example, we know that if you track dopamine levels as well as other feel good neurotransmitters like endogenous serotonin or epnafran endogenous opioids and endogenous cannabinoids, what you find is that initially when people engage in exercise, those neurotransmitters are low. But over the latter half of exercise, they slowly start to rise. And then when the exercise is stopped, those neurotransmitter levels remain elevated for hours afterwards. And of course, this is our runner's high. And then eventually those elevated levels of dopamine will go back down to baseline levels homeostasis, but without ever going into that dopamine deficit state. In other words, by paying for our dopamine up front, we get those feel good experiences, which we need, right? We're humans. We can't just like hang out in homeostasis, but we can get those good feelings without ever having to go into our cash dopamine reserve, so to speak. You made an interesting analogy a second ago, and I want to just draw attention to it, which is that there is an analogy here between the way we engage with our brains and the way we engage with money. You can buy things on credit, and that is sometimes valuable and smart to do. But it does mean that you're getting the good stuff first and then paying for it later. So that's what we do when we intentionally trigger dopamine in our heads. We're getting the good feelings now, but have to deal with it later. You're arguing that focusing on the pain side of the equation in some ways is, as you say, paying for the dopamine up front, you're doing the difficult thing now in exchange for the reward down the road. Exactly. And you can see the ways in which actually the way we pay for things makes us all more vulnerable to addiction, because now they have these credit cards where you don't even have to pay for them in real time. You can pay for them later, which is just terrible. I'm wondering if it will sound to many people that you're almost recommending a life of, you know, asceticism here. Are you recommending that people become ascetic, Santa? I'm recommending a new form of asceticism for the modern age. And what I mean by that is we are living in an unprecedented time of overwhelming access to highly reinforcing drugs and behaviors such that I think that our existence is going to be reliant upon figuring out how to navigate this world of overabundance. And so in fact, in order to be healthy, we actually have to intentionally veer slightly to the side of pain and insulate ourselves from pleasure in order to preserve balance. Have you done this yourself? Oh, yeah, I do this on a regular basis. What do you do? Well, I like to start my day with pain, namely doing some kind of exercise, mainly walking or swimming because I'm in my 50s now. But every morning, you know, when I wake up, trust me, I do not want to get out of bed, but I absolutely force myself to do it most of the time because I know I'll feel so much better afterwards. And it's just a great, angiallytic and mood stabilizer for me. And then we've raised our family with a lot of, you know, forced marches and outdoor wilderness experiences, which were challenging and difficult. We've insulated ourselves from digital media in the sense that we didn't have any devices for Wi-Fi, even Wi-Fi to the home until our eldest went to high school. And then she came back and said that she essentially couldn't function as a high school student without Wi-Fi in the home. They change the schedule every day. You have to log on everything just to know what class you're supposed to go to. It's crazy. So I'm really sad because now we have Wi-Fi and fiber optic and it makes it a lot harder for me personally to manage my consumption because like I'll get into these bad YouTube watching habits in the evenings. You know, you can just imagine. But anyway, that's something that we did. We bike a lot of places instead of driving. In fact, we have one 25 year old mini van which has 75,000 miles on it. And one of my husband tried to re-register for the insurance. They didn't believe us that it only had 75,000 miles. They made us like get an affidavit. Yeah. So what is the reward for living this way, Ana? What do you see in your life? Do you think you're seeing effects in your mind on your brain? Oh, yeah. You know, I used to think that my life was really hard and that that was the source of my unhappiness. But now I actually think that all along my life was actually too easy and that's why I was unhappy. One of the most striking things about stories of addiction is that they often involve increasing levels of social isolation. Think of the person who is up playing endless first person shooter video games in an apartment by himself at four o'clock in the morning or the furtive heavy consumer of pornography. The young woman addicted to pot. And I feel like we may have painted an overly negative picture of dopamine in this conversation. Yes, you can have an unhealthy relationship with dopamine but the problem is not with dopamine per se but the ways we go about triggering it. You say that relationships are a powerful way to trigger dopamine in a healthy fashion. Can you talk about that idea? Yeah, so my colleague Rob Malenka here at Stanford is neuroscientist. He and his colleagues have shown that oxytocin, which is our love hormone, binds to dopamine releasing neurons in the reward pathway. So that makes a lot of sense because we know when we fall in love, we feel high, right? That's a great feeling. And from a survival point of view or an evolutionary point of view, our brains want us to make connections to other people because we're more likely to find mates, more likely to be able to protect ourselves from predators, more likely to be able to steward scarce resources. So our brains get us to make those connections by releasing dopamine and making sure that it feels good. The problem with addiction is that essentially our substance or behavior of choice comes to replace those human connections. And so we move further and further into isolation. And we meet those basic needs through our drug rather than through making deep human connections. And so part of getting into recovery from addiction means moving out of isolation and trying to make deep and rewarding intimate connections with other people. Because essentially that's what we're really looking for. But we get fooled by these kinds of false standings for human connection. I'm wondering if you can tell me a little bit about the role of community here. There are many groups that have sprung up to try and fight addictions, groups like AA or NA or gamblers anonymous, for example. Tell me about the role that they play. And in some ways is it part of the same equation that we're looking at here, the role of human relationships and battling addiction? Yeah. AA, alcohol, synonymous and narcotics anonymous in my opinion are among the most remarkable social movements of the last 100 years. These are amazing grassroots organizations composed of people with addiction trying to help other people with addiction. And it's remarkably successful for those who actively participate. So you'll read a lot in the media now about how AA and other 12 sub organizations don't work. But that's not really a faithful representation of the evidence. There are many people who will not participate or get anything out of it. But for those who actively participate, engagement in AA and other 12 step groups is as effective and possibly even more effective than professional treatment. So what is the secret of these 12 step groups? Well, first of all, they provide a sober social network. They provide a specific path for recovery. But importantly, they're also really deshaming because you realize, oh, wow, I'm not the only one. And like, I have this thing that happened to my brain because I'm human. And I have this particular vulnerability and other people have experienced and done similar things that I have done in pursuit of their drug. And that is an incredible burst of intimacy. And yes, dopamine, right, that we get then from being taken into the fold of like-minded individuals who understand us and accept us in all our brokenness. One important idea that Anna has adopted in her own life powerfully resonates with a message of groups such as AA and NA. Which begins with telling the truth. Yeah, so this was really something that I learned from my patients. Over many years of seeing patients get into recovery from severe addictions, what I noticed was that those who seemed to get into the best recovery and be able to maintain recovery the longest were those who were committed to telling the truth. That was a central value for them, which they saw as just pivotal for maintaining sobriety or recovery. And I thought that was really interesting. Like, what is it about truth telling that enables recovery and enables people to stay in recovery because it just was such a consistent theme. Whether they got into recovery through 12 steps like AA or NA or just through their own journey, it was inevitable that they would be like, oh yeah, no, I can't lie. And when they said that they weren't just talking about, I can't lie about my addictive behaviors, they meant they couldn't lie about anything. That the lying itself was sort of the first breach in the dam for them and that they had to be truthful in all things in order to maintain recovery. So that was really interesting to me and I began to explore that both from a scientific perspective as well as try to employ it in my own life. One of the things I find so striking about this conversation on is that you're someone who spends her day helping patients, but I'm not getting the sense that you see yourself as better or even different from the people you're trying to help. I understand that you're a fan of the philosopher Martin Boober who has talked about what it's like to truly engage with another person. He talks about this high and down moment, which he believed can occur between any two individuals who just make the effort to be fully present with each other. And it's a divine moment where everything else falls away. It's not sexualized love. It's something akin to love, but what's so interesting about this high and down concept is that it can be achieved in a nanosecond with anybody. You could achieve it with a stranger, this idea of being that when we kind of come to the encounter, fully open and vulnerable in our shared humanity and we see each other, that's a really special and remarkable experience. And I try to create that in my work with patients because that alone is healing. I've probably learned more from my patients than I think I've given them in return. I really see people in recovery from severe addictions as modern day prophets because these are folks who have had to figure out pleasure and pain and consumption in a dopamine overloaded world and they've had to do it as a matter of life and death and they've been able to do it. They really provide this roadmap of deep wisdom for the rest of us. When we come back, your questions answered. We revisit listener questions about Anna Lemke's research. You're listening to Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta. In today's episode, we heard part of our 2023 conversation with psychiatrist Anna Lemke. She is author of the book Dopamine Nation, Finding Balance in the Age of Indogance. We talked about the balance between pain and pleasure in our brains and how our modern lives may be throwing off that balance. We received a flood of listener questions and comments when our episodes with Anna first aired. We're going to turn now to your questions answered, the segment that we released not long after those episodes came out. I started by asking Anna if she was surprised at the widespread public interest in the topic. Very surprised. So I was talking with a colleague just before it came out and he said, well, what's it about? Well, basically, it's a book about how pain is good for us. He started laughing and he said, oh, that'll be a New York Times bestseller. And I said, right, exactly. Until my surprise, it was. I think though that this is a very old idea, really. It's thousands of years old. It's also an idea that many other people have been putting out there. But somehow it's an idea that I think is right for our times. And I think many people are seeing that they live in a sea of plenty and yet there are rising rates of anxiety and depression. People see this, people see the paradox. And in some ways, I think you are giving them a way to resolve that paradox. Yeah. To resolve it, to name it, to at least to some extent, to understand it. And also some actionable items in terms of what to do about it. So as I said, we received a number of questions about the nature of addiction. Let me start with this one from a listener named Michelle. What I would love to know is why is it that one person can engage in certain addictive activities with impunity, but become addicted to others? For example, I've been able to take relief nicotine throughout my life. So even if I smoked it regularly, I would not crave it. Yet a day doesn't go by that I don't drink coffee and I have to completely abstain from alcohol. And I know others who used perhaps hard drugs recreationally and could take it or leave it, but they may have had shopping addictions or sex and love addictions. So what is it that draws one person to a certain type of addiction as opposed to another? What do you think, Ada? Is there a reason why some people are drawn to some sources of addiction and not to others? This is a great question and it's a question about which there's remarkably little science. And there needs to be a lot more. We call this the concept of drug of choice, which is to say what is highly reinforcing for one person's brain may not be so for another and vice versa. And when I think about this from an evolutionary perspective, I think, well, this is actually mother nature, ensuring that the tribe gets everything it needs to survive on a population level. If we were all going for the same berry bush, then we would end up with a lot of berries, but not enough meat, not enough shelter, not enough partners or whatever it is that we need to survive. But by ensuring that we're all wired just a little bit differently, what mother nature has done is made sure that in a world of scarcity, we are collectively getting everything that we need. And by the way, I do reframe people with severe addiction in today's world as people who would have been absolutely crucial for survival of the group in a world of scarcity. I mean, in a world where we have to work very hard to get even the mirrors to reward, you would want people who are very, very tenacious about getting a particular substance. But this whole concept of drug choices is also really relevant for what is unique about the time that we live in now. I mean, I'll just use myself as an example. I used to think that the addiction gene skipped me in my family because alcohol never really gave me any kind of euphoria. It wasn't an anxiety-elitic. Even caffeine doesn't wake me up. I thought, well, whatever this addiction thing is, I must not have inherited it. But the truth was I just hadn't yet met my drug of choice. And it wasn't until midlife when I discovered this kind of drugified novel, the romance novel, when I got a kindle, that there could be this immediate access and delivery. And then I was often running, completely caught up in it, unawares. Which is important because what it says is that those of us who previously have been immune to the problem of addiction are now vulnerable because of the ways in which our world has taken even seemingly innocuous behaviors and made them highly reinforcing, highly accessible. All of this being said, it's still important to acknowledge that we do come into this world with different degrees of vulnerability to addiction. So there are some of us who are much more vulnerable in general to the problem of addiction than others. And those individuals will struggle with almost every substance and behavior. In other words, the kind of tendency to compulsively over-consume despite harmful consequences is something that some individuals really do struggle with no matter what the drug is. And those are individuals who will go on to develop very severe addictions potentially. And that's probably about 10 to 15% of the population. But again, I think the segment of the population struggling with addiction is growing because of our modern ecosystem. In some ways, I think on a eugest anticipated, the next question which comes from listener Ron, who is asking the question, are some people more vulnerable to addictions in general? Here he is. Why is it that some people seem to be more of the addictive personality type? Well, other people seem to be able to eat or drink and never develop the addictive cycle, never become addicts. How is that? And is there any way we can explain why some people are simply hard-bired one way and some people the other way? Thank you so much. And I really enjoy the show. So what do you think the reason is, Ana, that some of us seem to have a greater tendency towards addiction and others have much less? It's true that different people have different vulnerabilities to the problem of addiction. We used to call this the addictive personality. Now we use the language of the disease of addiction and some people are more vulnerable to the disease of addiction than others. Addiction is a complex biopsychosocial illness, meaning that there are biological contributors, psychological contributors, and social contextual contributors. So when we look at the biological or inherited aspect of addiction, we do know that individuals who have a biological parent or grandparent addicted to alcohol in particular are more vulnerable than the general population of becoming addicted to alcohol themselves, even if raised out of that alcohol using home. So that's important because the psychological piece is that if we are raised in a home where our caregivers are either explicitly or implicitly condoning substance use or other addictive behaviors, we are more likely to get addicted ourselves. So then you have this kind of psychological or nurture aspect, which is also biological in the sense that of epigenetics and how our experiences will turn on and off certain genes, making certain proteins, which also can potentially be passed on to the next generation. This is why things like multi-generational trauma, for example, also increase the risk of addiction. And then finally you have social or contextual factors, which is, for example, simple access. If you live in an environment where drugs are readily available, you're more likely to try them and hence more likely to get addicted to them. And of course that's what dopamine nation is all about. When we come back, where's the line between a healthy passion and an unhealthy addiction? You're listening to Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedanta. This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedanta. Psychiatrist Analemki argues that pleasure and pain exist on opposite ends of a sea saw in our minds. Many of us are pressing down too hard and too often on the pleasure side of the sea saw. We give ourselves little jolt of pleasure through shopping, gaming and gambling. That can force our brains to compensate by pressing down on the pain side of the sea saw, leading to higher rates of addiction, self-harm and anxiety. Now Analemki is answering your questions about how to balance that sea saw. One of the things that jumped out at me in our initial conversation is that it can be very hard to recognize that you're in the grip of an addiction when you are in fact addicted. Here's a message we received from a listener named Hannah. My first question is what is the difference between passion and too much dopamine? For example, if you're passionate about surfing or skiing or you're passionate about rising the ranks of your career, at what point does it become like an unhealthy dopamine response? How do you distinguish between the two, especially if you are trying to be an expert at something? So what's the line between the time that you invest in all these different activities and something that might be considered unhealthy? My second question is how do you avoid being a blood eye? If you're avoiding dopamine triggers but you don't want to fall behind in society. So two questions here, Anna. The first is what's the difference between passion and addiction? And the second idea here is if you see all the people around you working 90 hour weeks to get ahead in their careers, how do you try and get ahead in your career without it becoming an obsession? Right. So addiction, when I use that word, is intended to denote a form of psychopathology or mental illness. And it's always important to clarify that there is no brain scan or blood test or other objective measure of addiction. We base the diagnosis on phenomenology, that is to say patterns of behavior of continued compulsive use despite harm to self or others. So the question of when a passion gives way to an addiction is really the question of whether or not it's harmful to self and or others. And that could include harm that the individual, him or herself, doesn't recognize, but that others recognize. Having said that, the question of when we cross that Rubicon is very complex because of the cultural aspects in terms of who defines what is dysfunctional or harmful. The caller referred to work, which implies a question, well, when when are you or workaholic and when are you just really invested in your career? And our modern day heroes are people who work a lot of hours and sacrifice almost everything to career in some instances, to money, in some instances to fame. And those are our heroes, so we don't recognize those individuals as engaging in pathological behaviors. So now we have the issue of the societal overlay, what society says is, okay, this is an illegal drug, this is illegal drug, this is a healthy behavior, this is an unhealthy behavior. I think when taken to the extremes, I think many people would be able to say, oh yeah, that person is addicted to X, Y or Z because they keep surfing or skiing or working beyond the point where it's good for their bodies, beyond the point where they're able to foster healthy relationships, take care of themselves and the others that they love, live according to their values, implicit in all of these are ideas we have about values and what makes for the good life. I'd say in terms of the Luddite question and not wanting to fall behind and the extent to which digital media is interwoven into every aspect of our lives. One, we're thinking about overconsumption of digital media and digital drugs, how on earth do we define that? How do we get away from it? And these are really important questions that I think we should all be asking now and I wouldn't presume to have the answers to. I think we're at the forefront of a grand social human experiment. And I've made certain assumptions about digital media in our lives, namely that for all the good that it's done, there are harms. So I'm suggesting that disconnecting from digital media and from our devices for a period of time every day or maybe a day a week or what have you, there's no data on this amount of time is too much and if you limit it to that amount of time you're okay. Except to say that we do have information that shows that as we progressively spend more and more time online, we are more likely to manifest symptoms of anxiety, depression, insomnia, and attention. So there's clearly a correlation between these two things. And as I hypothesize, I think there is also causation that it is the enormous amount of time that we're spending online that's contributing to our unhappiness. And I base that in part on the interventions that we do clinically where we see people who come with anxiety, depression, what have you consuming enormous amounts of digital media. We ask them to abstain for a period of time and what we find is that many of them feel better without our doing any other intervention. And so I make this analogy to drugs and alcohol and the same kinds of benefits that we see in our patients when they can abstain from drugs and alcohol for long enough. And that's kind of, where I'm coming from with that. Given the fact that the term addiction has a negative connotation on now, I'm worried that in some ways people may use the term really as a way of marking people whose behavior that they don't agree with. So for example, I am not a triathlete. And so I can look at someone running triathlons and say, look, this person is obsessed. That borders on an addiction, they really should be scaling back and, you know, exercising much more moderately. How do we come up with definitions of addiction that don't just devolve into name calling, especially when it comes to people who are opponents or people who we might disagree with? I agree with you. I think there's a real danger here of over generalizing, of labeling, of, in fact, trivializing the disease of addiction by using it in instances where it doesn't really apply. You know, when we diagnose addiction clinically, we don't do that casually. We talk to patients at length, we talk to their family members, we try to get a full 360 degree view, we get the subjective encounter, but we also try to get non-subjective data that might help inform us whether or not this behavior is really harmful. Because I agree with you, you know, you're absolutely right that the level of intensity that some people will engage in activities may be for them really healthy, right? People have, I mean, just temperamentally different needs for intensity and engagement. And I would hate to send the message that any kind of intense engagement is an addiction. That's, that's not at all what I'm saying. And I think it trivializes the disease of addiction, which can be not just debilitating, but also life threatening. Is it the case that we can say if the person with the problem recognizes they have a problem that makes it a good candidate for it to be an addiction, although as I'm saying this, I'm realizing, of course, one of the things that addiction does is rob us of insight. That's right. Exactly. Oh, I wish that it were, that we could use that as a criteria, but that would be incredibly misleading because it's very easy to lose sight of true cause and effect when we are engaging in these types of highly reinforcing behaviors. And in fact, it's so well known in the field of addiction that there's a term for it, denial. And it's a powerful, powerful thing, denial. It's, it's, it's profoundly true that even people with very severe addictions can have very limited awareness of the harm that their behavior is causing. Even though it's patently obvious to everyone around them, even if they've gotten to the point where they've incurred serious health consequences, relationship consequences, legal consequences. So, you know, that's not true for everybody with addiction, obviously, but it's true for enough people that it's a common trope in the field. In fact, I had a patient say to me that denial is actually an acronym for don't even know I am lying. We received a large number of responses from listeners who wanted to know about the relationship between ADHD and addiction. This question comes from Stacey in Zurich, Switzerland. My question regarding addiction is regarding neurodiversities because I feel like a lot of the time we're just dealing with neuro-typical people and how they respond to dopamine. However, when you have something like ADHD, like myself or my children, the urge to have a dopamine hit is so much stronger. And I've noticed that since I've begun taking medication to treat my ADHD, I find myself less addicted to dopamine producing things like YouTube or Facebook or Instagram. And I just wonder if neurodiversity is playing a larger role in this than people are really realizing. And whether we should have more training or more information available about the way that neurodiversities affect us in regards to addiction. Thank you. Fascinating. What's the connection between ADHD and addiction, Nana? So there's fairly reliable evidence, epidemiologic evidence, to show that children who are diagnosed with ADHD are at increased risk of the developing addiction later in life. And it's not clear why that is, but one of the enduring character traits that you can test for that is also associated with the development of addiction is impulsivity. And impulsivity is the tendency to have difficulty putting a pause between the thought of doing something and actually doing it. So if ADHD is indeed a difference in prefrontal cortex, wiring that limits a person's ability to, let's say, control their impulses or appreciate delayed consequences, that it makes sense that those individuals might be more vulnerable to the problem of addiction getting older. There's also, I believe, although I'm not really familiar with this literature, a literature suggesting that when it comes to dopamine firing, that people with ADHD might at baseline actually have lower levels of dopamine firing in the reward pathway. And by that, I mean, might be to some degree reward insensitive. So might at baseline need more potent rewards to feel the rewarding effects. One of the things that I think is important, though, to get out into public awareness is this idea that was promulgated in the field about 20 years ago based on some early analyses that suggested that if you take a group of kids with ADHD and you give half of them stimulants to treat the ADHD and the other half, you don't give those stimulants, the idea is that the kids that you give stimulants to will have a decreased risk of developing addiction in adulthood, the idea being that somehow the stimulants would protect them from that problem. That has essentially been debunked. So, you know, a more recent meta-analysis does not give credence to that idea. So medications to treat ADHD looks like it's not protective in terms of later life development of addiction. And in my practice, and of course, my practice is an addiction practice, so, you know, it comes with some inherent bias there, but in my practice, what I see is individuals who are exposed to stimulants to treat their ADHD and then become addicted to those stimulants. So that's obviously not going to be, you know, everybody who gets stimulants for ADHD, but again, if you're exposed to a drug, if that drug then changes your brain, it may change your brain in a way that actually makes you more vulnerable. Many listeners voiced concerns about kids in the amount of time they spend on cell phones and other devices. We received this question from Giselle in Chicago, Illinois. I work at a high school and it's by far the biggest challenge I encounter. Kids cannot stay off their phone for more than five minutes at a time despite all the rules and policies we have about putting phones away and constant reminders. Kids just cannot get off it and the addiction is real. And I worry that we're not as an institution, not addressing it as the serious addiction. It is, I worry that about kids' mental health and I worry about them also not learning because they can't focus for more than five, 10 minutes at a time. Would he recommend or what solution should we do at the high school level to keep kids off their phones? Thanks. What do you think, Anna? Well, this is a very dire concern of mine as well, especially because I feel like there is a pretty good solution for it, which is to say I believe that schools from elementary to middle school to high school should have top-down policies where phones are not allowed during school hours. And this top-down policy means that everybody has to be off of their phone. You eliminate the problem of FOMO or fear of missing out, which is a big driver of what gets kids going back online in addition to the fact that these devices are just inherently highly reinforcing and addictive. But when you have these top-down policies, it's a relief for kids. Everybody's off their phone. They have to be. It's the rule. And there are some really clever things that schools, some schools are doing now. For example, there are these pouches that in some schools, kids, when they come to school in the morning, they put their device in the pouch. The pouch is sealed or locked, and the kid keeps their phone with them, but they can't receive or transmit during the school day. And at the end of the school day, the device is unlocked and kids can have their phones back and go back on their phones. And schools that are doing this are reporting that schools are noisy again. Why are they noisy? Because kids are interacting with each other. There's also, it was a private school in Massachusetts, the Bucston School, that took phones away from their private high school students. And they noticed huge improvements in psychological and emotional well-being. And I just think this is just both hopeful and also completely tragic that we are not on mass, making this just standard policy for primary schools all the way up through 12th grade. It's not fair to kids. It's not fair to teachers. It's not fair to anybody that these incredibly compelling devices create the kinds of environments that make it really difficult for folks to learn. And of course, we're not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. There are a lot of great things about smartphones and about this kind of connectivity. But gosh, like let's get a healthier relationship with the technology. And in some ways, I think this echoes something that you told me when we talked first to Anna, which is that even though addictions are a problem that individuals face, there are times when individuals can't be held responsible for fixing those addictions. Some of those addictions need to be fixed at the structural level, at the level of institutions, at the level of society. Absolutely. I mean, let's just take alcohol as an example. The majority of people who drink alcohol are not going to go on to become addicted to alcohol. But about 10 to 15% of individuals will at some point in their lives develop an alcohol use disorder. Those are people who just innately have increased vulnerability to the problem of alcohol addiction. Hence, we've recognized as a society that alcohol can do harms. And we've made rules and regulations around how alcohol can be consumed, how it can be sold, how it can be marketed, especially we're looking out for children, children can't buy alcohol until a certain age, alcohol can't be marketed in a certain way. These are the types of things that we need to employ, the types of interventions and policies. And just plain old thought process, we need to employ when we're thinking about digital devices and digital media. When we come back, the paradox of becoming addicted to things that are healthy, you're listening to Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta. Today we're discussing pain and pleasure with psychiatrist Anna Lemke. Anna is answering your questions about addiction, and the most effective ways to treat various forms of it. And we're going to talk about the fact that we're going to be able to do this in a certain way. This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta. Today we're discussing pain and pleasure with psychiatrist Anna Lemke. Anna is answering your questions about addiction and the most effective ways to treat various forms of it. Anna many listeners pointed out that addictions to things that are healthy can also be problematic. So being addicted to food or exercise is not the same thing as an addiction to cocaine or heroin because food and exercise are in fact good for us. But a listener named Nancy said, I would like the topic of exercise addiction to be explored. I've had this addiction for most of my life. I'm 65 and I'm sure I'm not alone. It's both a blessing and a curse to feel the need to exercise every day. We also received a question from a listener named Kendall in Pennsylvania. If I'm honest, I find all eating experiences compelling, regardless of the type of food. So how can I recover from food addiction if I need to eat to be a person and live? I'm just doubtful that after 30 years I can find balance in my mind and find a part of my mind I can trust. What do you think, Anna? In some ways, I think the listener is on to something which is when you're addicted to something that is also for the most part healthy, it creates a very complicated situation. Yeah, that was a really touching call. The way that I heard it is that she was pushing back directly on this idea of dopamine fasting or cutting out the particular substance or behavior that's problematic. What I heard her saying is that all food is problematic for me. It's not a matter of cutting out cupcakes and cookies and potato chips. Even if you gave me a salad, I have the potential to binge eat on salad. That I think is a really important point that when it comes to something like food and I think food can be easily analogized also to the technology that's so embedded in our lives, there is on some level not a way to dopamine fast from something that we need in order to survive or to make our way through modern life and making it just way, way more difficult to get a handle on those kinds of unhealthy consumptive behaviors. You can basically binge on anything now. I personally think and my professional experience speaks to this. That's where getting help from others, especially from other individuals struggling with the same problem either through 12-step peer support, like food addicts anonymous or overeaters anonymous, or other forms of support from people who are struggling with the same or similar problem, even if it's not 12-step. Connecting with others around regulation of our consumptive behaviors is hugely helpful or has the potential to be hugely helpful. This is a kind of co-regulation that we can engage in first by being radically honest about the problem with others recognizing we're not alone and then in tandem with others and sharing our struggles together, I'm finding a way to get into balance. I also think that this is where certain psychological techniques can be helpful. Mindfulness is often talked about and there's a sort of a mindful eating movement. It's interesting because the mindful eating movement folks, I think on some level, push back on any kind of restrictions because their argument is that restricting any food group leads or contributes to the cycle of sort of abstinence, restricting, binging and then starting all over again. I think that there is some truth to that, except that what I would say is that I think it's really important to recognize that our orientation with food is potentially an addiction because we've drugified our food supply and made it so much more reinforcing so that cutting out addictive foods can really help with this cycle. And that speaks to also just the question or comment more broadly about how healthy behaviors have become addicted. And I think that's really the central point here that things that really we do think of as healthy, like reading, like playing chess, like eating food, like having sex, we live in a world now in which the technology has turned these otherwise healthy behaviors into something that is potentially addictive for certain vulnerable individuals. And so re-conceptualizing our consumptive behaviors around that knowledge, I think, can be helpful if we can identify in a ways to de-drugify those behaviors and substances. One question that many listeners asked has to do with how to avoid swapping one addiction for another. We received this question from listener Amrita. How do I prevent one addiction from replacing another one as a wean-mesself of the first one? Do I need to be constantly on the lookout for these kind of behaviors and go through routines of dopamine starvation for the rest of my life? What do you think, Anna? Yeah, so this phenomenon of switching one addiction for another is very well known. It's sometimes referred to as cross-addiction. There are lots of animal studies showing that an animal who gets addicted to one drug will more easily get addicted to another drug when that first drug is made unavailable. So, or even if the first drug isn't made unavailable, like what once we become addicted, we sort of are prime then for that kind of behavior or we can be prime for that kind of behavior. So, my answer to this caller would be the first step is just being aware of the problem of cross-addiction in clinical work. What we say to patients is something like, well now you're going to try to give up cannabis for this month. Be really careful that you don't now increase consumption of sugary foods, which you've also talked about as something that's reinforcing for you. So, just sort of openly talking about it and acknowledging it. And then again, I think psychological and spiritual practices around learning to sit with the craving and the urges to recognize the tendency to want to switch that urge from one reinforcer to another. I do think it's really fascinating the way in which we organize time in the modern world around our rewards. So, our entire day for many of us, including myself, on some level is structured around this idea of, well, when am I going to be done with this thing that I don't want to be doing so that I can do the thing that I want to be doing? It's just the way we live now. So, a couple of things that I think are really helpful here is to just recognize that our desire is infinite and that on some level we will never be satisfied no matter how much of those good rewards we get. And then just sort of learning to sit with that. Sometimes I also think that certain thought experiments like imagine going through your whole day and not rewarding yourself with any of your usual rewards. And what I find that does, when I engage in that thought experiment, is that it really allows me to be much more present in the moment because I'm not in the moment looking forward to the moment when I'm going to get my reward. Some listeners have asked a question. If I notice that I'm heading down a path that looks like it's on a path to addiction, how do I break this cycle? Here's the question we received from a listener named Andrea. Hi, Anna. I'm getting married next year and looking for wedding dresses online has become online shopping for all sorts of things really quickly. I can see it happening, but I wanted to ask you, how do you hit stop? How do you make your brain stop doing this or how do you work with your brain to stop doing this when you're catching it early? Thank you so much. What do you think, Anna? When you feel like you're on the road to someplace bad, is it something you can do to nudge yourself in a more positive direction? Yeah, I think there's a lot you can do. First of all, I think just being open about it, like Andrea has done and naming it can be really helpful. It can bring it into our awareness in a new way that it's not necessarily going to be if it's just sort of pinging around in the dark recesses of our mind. I applaud her for being open about it, but for other listeners, you can tell somebody else what behavior you're engaging in. Again, I'll just say that even if we kind of know that we're doing that behavior, it's often not until we've set it out loud to another human being that it becomes really real to us. Once it's become real to us, we can't unsee it. Then that awareness allows us then to begin to create the motivation to want to change the behavior. In fact, it may be true that the dopamine fasting project is best suited for individuals who are not yet fully addicted, but who notice that they're on their way to addiction. Then with intention, setting a specific quit date for when you're going to give up that substance or behavior, getting that substance or access to that behavior out of the house or creating other self-binding strategies to sort of limit consumption or make it harder to get access. Those are all things you can plan and do in advance. Tell people you're going to be dopamine fasting, do it with somebody else, and then really commit to it and frame it not as deprivation, but as an opportunity to really do something positive and healthy for yourself. We talked earlier in the conversation about how the term addiction can get used as a form of name calling where we're just describing people whom we don't like or activities, we don't like, we brand them as addictions. We also talked about how people who have addictions often don't have the insight to know that they are on the road to addiction. A few listeners have asked the question, what if I can see someone in my life, a friend, a family member, a coworker, heading down a path that looks like it's an unhealthy path? How do I bring that up? How do I launch that very difficult conversation to have the person say, do I have a problem? Yeah, so I get this question all the time. Of course, every situation is unique, so it's difficult to give a one-size-fits-all answer, but I think the place we can always start is with compassion and empathy, and just expressing to the person that we care about that we'd like to talk with them about something that's difficult to talk about, but it's coming from a place of love, which is just very simply our concern for that individual given certain behaviors that we've observed. So in a time when you are calm and your loved one is calm and not in a time when you're in a state of anxious dysregulation as a parent or a spouse or a friend and not a time when they're using, so some other time than that approach your loved one and say, hey, I'd like to share something with you that I've been observing that makes me concerned for you and I want to share it because I really love you and care about you. And then after sharing it in a brief way, don't say more. Just be quiet and let them hear and process that. And they may not want to discuss further and that's okay. If they do want to discuss further, the key there is to not keep repeating what you've said once before, again and again, especially not repeating it more emphatically, but to just then listen and ask questions and be curious. And of course this is a simulation of what we do in the early stages of psychotherapy. We are just compassionate and we're curious. And one of my colleagues are kind of liking it to being a journalist. Just imagine that you're a journalist trying to get the story. And so you would ask a lot of questions about what that person's subjective experience is like. And again, this is potentially very therapeutic for people because when we say out loud, what we're doing, how much how often, why, etc, etc. We see it for the first time and I cannot emphasize it enough other ways in which we only become aware of certain types of behaviors when we put them into narrative form and express them with another human being. Anna Lemke is a psychiatrist and researcher in the behavioral sciences at Stanford University. She is the author of Dopamine Nation, Finding Balance in the Age of Indulgence. Anna Lemke, thank you so much for joining me today on Hidden Brain. Oh, you're welcome. I'm just overjoyed that people want to learn about this. Hidden Brain is produced by Hidden Brain Media. Our audio production team includes Annie Murphy Paul, Kristen Wong, Laura Quarelle, Ryan Katz, Autumn Barnes, Andrew Chadwick and Nick Woodbury. Tara Boyle is our executive producer. I'm Hidden Brain's executive editor. If you found this episode to be insightful or useful, please share it with one or two people in your life. Your word of mouth recommendations play a big role in helping us to connect new listeners with the ideas we explore on the show. I'm Shankar Vedantam. See you soon.