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/
An average apple, which is a fairly mild fruit, has 20 to 25 grams of sugar. There may be none added but it's still a ton of sugar. Try weighing out 25 grams of sugar to see what that looks like.
We also bred fruit to be sweeter than they were naturally, so there's that as well.
It's not the same kind of sugar as table sugar so your comparison is disingenuous, as is the whole debate.
When we talk about sugar in the context of food addiction or weight management, we mean sucrose, as in table sugar. Not the fructose in fruit.
You can quibble about the semantics of it if you want to, but those definitions are set in stone and nothing you're going to say will change that.
Now stop arguing in bad faith and let the rest of us speak our minds.
Also apples have 8 grams of sugars in them on average, not 25, now let's watch you prove my point that you're just here to argue and not to meaningfully talk about sugar addiction by arguing about apples more.
Actually respectfully no. When we talk about sugar in diet, we're talking about carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are converted to glucose in the liver, and it's glucose levels in the bloodstream that cause the body's ill effects. It doesn't matter how the glucose gets into the bloodstream so natural sugar, added sugar, carbohydrates, it's all about glucose in the blood
Since sugar is not a dietary requirement, it is not nutritionally necessary for human existence, we can have the debate about sugar addiction. There are many human diets that are completely sustainable that have no sugar, carbohydrates in them. So in the context of the sugar addiction debate, we need to evaluate that in terms of no carbohydrates versus a diet with carbohydrates.
Many people have great difficulty sustaining a diet with no carbohydrates for the first week. This is what I believe is referred to as sugar addiction.
With all discussions it's important that we agree on vocabulary, so I hope this clarifies the context at least in the journals referenced here. But I appreciate you are no added sugar position. From a no added sugar diet, sugar addiction doesn't exist, because there's enough base sugar in food anyway. Somebody could eat lots of rice, lots of fruits, and get their sugar fixed that way. Or even honey.
Then you're here to quibble about stupid bullshit that doesn't matter instead of whether sugar is as addictive as hard drugs or not, which is the actual topic of the thread.
Thanks for proving my point
The papers referenced put mice on a diet that doesn't have sugar, carbohydrates. And then they allow them to self-select between sugar, and other drugs. And they observe the behavior. That's where the sugar is as addictive as cocaine comes from.
Quibbling over casual vocabulary is pointless, it's the setup of the experiments that matters as far as the as addictive as cocaine metric matters
You could have simply said that instead of derailing the thread to talk about apples and it would have gone a lot more smoothly for you.
Your anger is misplaced. I did not make an analogy to apples at all. The person you are referencing is not me
For context, pinkdrunkenelephants said in a different comment, that they are "fat as a pile of pig shit" (direct quote) and consumes a lot of doughnuts and sugary drinks like coke.
That user is sugar addicted, and the reason why they are posting what they are is to justify their actions. Because if there is no sugar addiction, they cannot be an addict.
I feel for them. I've been there. I didn't know what to do. The good news is being in that mental state, and in that physical state, are both things that can be temporary.
The fact that they describe themselves so negatively tells me that they're unhappy with the situation. And I've been there too. Struggling, struggling, struggling, and then just saying I'm happy where I am but still being very negative about it. It's not a healthy place
But in this thread we've outlined the options for them, and if they want to change it they have the tools to do so and I hope they're either happy now, or have the tools to become happy in the future.
But I imagine in their original context, they are using the disparaging language to lend themselves credibility for saying it's a personal choice. And as a rhetorical method that might work, but as you gleened... It's just defensive armor.
When I was struggling with obesity, and my friends were having success by just cutting out Coke, I was genuinely jealous, and a little angry that it was working for them. That was a hard mix of emotions to process. I didn't take it out on them, but I could see the conflict in my own mind. So we all process this journey differently. I hold no grudges now