Modified post. Read the edit at the buttom.

Now, call me crazy, I don’t think so! I have been an addict and I know how it is to be an addict, but I don’t think sugar is as addictive as cocaine. And I really am frustrated with people who say such things.

This notion that it’s as addictive drives me crazy! I mean, imagine someone gullible who says, well, “I can control my addiction to ice cream, heck I can go without ice cream for months, if it’s as addictive as cocaine, why not give cocaine a chance? It’s not like it’s gonna destroy me or something?” Yeah, I have once been this gullible (when I was younger) and I hate this.

I do crave sugar and I do occasionally (once per week and sometimes twice a month) buy sugary treats/lays packet (5 Indian Rupees, smallest one) to quench that craving, but I refuse to believe that it is as addictive as cocaine or any other drugs. PS: My last lays packet was 45 ago and I am fine, and this is the most addictive substance I have consumed.

I am pretty some people here have been addicted to cocaine (truly no judgement, I hope you are sober now), so what say you?

PS: If you haven’t been addicted to anything drastic as drugs, you are still welcome to chip in.


edit: thank you all for adding greater context.

I realize now that when they talk about sugar, they are not just talking abt lays and ice creams, but sugar in general. I get the studies now. But media is doing a terrible job of reporting on studies.

Also, the media depiction of scientific studies is really the worst. I mean, they make claims which garbage and/or incomplete data or publish articles on studies which make more alarming claims. Also, maybe wait for a consensus before you publish anything, i.e., don’t publish anything which isn’t peer reviewed and replicated multiple times. Yes, your readers might miss out on the latest and greatest, but it isn’t really helpful if the latest and greatest studies in science aren’t peer reviewed and backed up well by data.

I feel like a headline “SUGAR IS AS ADDICTIVE AS COCAINE” can and will be life destroying if you don’t give enough information. I feel like there should be an ethical responsibility to not sensationalize studies, maybe instead of “SUGAR IS AS ADDICTIVE AS COCAINE” give a headline like “Sugar and Addiction, what science says.”

also, https://i.imgur.com/VrBgrjA.png ss of bing chat gpt answering the question.

some articles: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/25/is-sugar-really-as-addictive-as-cocaine-scientists-row-over-effect-on-body-and-brain

https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/experts-is-sugar-addictive-drug

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/cravings/202209/is-sugar-addictive

https://brainmd.com/blog/what-do-sugar-and-cocaine-have-in-common/

  • waka@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    That is correct. Your Body mostly needs good protein sources (there’s no such thing as too much protein intake except if liver/kidney diseases exist already) since it can only reuse part of those in the body, not synthesize all necessary forms of it. Everything else (fat and carbohydrates) is purely energy. Sugar, starches and anything with sugar is just carbs to the body in different forms. The body can synthesize those as needed, whatever of both is deficient. Your body most likely runs a lot better on fat, according to anyone who tried.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      there’s no such thing as too much protein intake except if liver/kidney diseases exist already

      Nope. “Rabbit poisoning” used to be a pretty common thing. Early north Americans whose main protein source was rabbit got too much protein and developed health issues.

      You also act like vegtables aren’t a thing…

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I never said it was…

              I implied someone acting like a human can be healthy without eating vegetables doesn’t know what they’re talkng about…

              And the person I replied to refusing to admit they’re wrong that there’s no such thing as too much protein means they’re likely getting their nutritional information from Joe Rogaine

      • waka@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Vegetables do provide some nutrients and buffering, yet they’re not an absolutely necessary main source IF you have access to good quality meat, eggs, fish, etc. Those things have a very high micronutritiants-content, as long as they are of good quality.

        On Rabbit poisoning, looked it up. That is based on an absolutely purely protein-based diet with little to no intake of fat and carbs, as far as I understand that right now. I did not state that eating purely protein is okay, just that the body can make up for deficiencies in fat or carbs as needed. So eating nothing but chicken meat without any fat or carbs would likely cause rabbit poisoning symptoms as well. Which is, again, not what I stated.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I did not state that eating purely protein is okay

          You said:

          there’s no such thing as too much protein intake except if liver/kidney diseases exist already)

          Which is wrong.

          Really nothing you’re saying is based in science, but considering how this went, I don’t think explaining it all is going to be productive

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So the fun thing is, if you reverse that ‘Academic peer reviewed source supporting the claim that your body runs optimally on carbohydrates’ is also missing. Nutritional research is massively lacking with “tradition” standing in for basic foundational science.

        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1743-7075-1-2 Ketogenic diets and physical performance

        Basically the theory goes like this, bodies that are glucose adapted can only tap into the free glucose in the blood, which is like 3-5g, not very much. Bodies adapted to fat burning (ketosis) can tap into the entire stored fat reserve for performance. So long term endurance tasks win on ketosis. Glucose is great for burst activity (which is why cortisal/adrenalin cause the liver to produce glucose in the blood, to help with bursts)