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/

  • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
    2·
    1 year ago

    I asked for academic sources for a reason nakely because there is a ton of bullshit broscience surrounding keto. Do you have peer reviewed academic sources? Wikipedia and a pharmacy group's blog aren't peer reviewed academic sources.

    As an aside you might want to look into how much younger Inuits who ate a traditional diet died vs those that ate more plants. It doesn't support keto as a healthy diet at all by comparison.

    • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

      I'm sorry your dissatisfied with the sources I could find.

      What are you referring to by mortality rates in Intuit children? I'm not familiar with that study

      • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        1 year ago

        That's because they aren't what I asked for though to be fair Im also aware those sources do not exist because we haven't done those studies.

        The fact that the Inuit traditionally have a much shorter lifespan is a fairly well documented fact. It's really hard living in the Arctic and it is extremely likely that you do need some plants to live a more normal life. You'll note it's never academics that bring them up as an example for how keto is "totes healthy" (again we don't know if it is for decades on end).

            • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
              1·
              1 year ago

              Lifespan for literally every group I can think of has gone massively upwards. Any evidence that that's due to diet in the inuit case? Any evidence that the diets of the people referenced even changed?

              • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
                1·
                1 year ago

                It's in the link I supplied. They talk about how it went from twenty nine years old to seventy from 1930 to now. You want to guess what the biggest change was for Inuit in that time?

                • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  Acesss to modern healthcare? The ability to hunt with modern techniques/tools? There's lots of possibilities which is why we need to study things not just make overarching statements and take them as fact. You're making enormous assumptions with no evidence, which is what you were complaining about with the other person, even when provided with (admittedly specious, but interesting) evidence.