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/

  • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
    28·
    1 year ago

    I want to respond to your edit:

    wait for consensus before you publish, don't publish anything that isn't peer reviewed and replicated multiple times.

    You need to understand that publishing is the way scientists communicate among each other. Of course, all reputable journals conduct peer review before publishing, but peer review is just that: Review. The peer review process is meant to uncover obviously bad, or poorly communicated, research.

    Replication happens when other scientists read the paper and decide to replicate. In fact, by far most replication is likely never published, because it is done as a part of model/rig verification and testing. For example: If I implement a model or build an experimental rig and want to make sure I did it right, I'll go replicate some work to test it. If I successfully replicate I'm probably not going to spend time publishing that, because I built the rig/implemented to model to do my own research. If I'm unable to replicate, I'll first assume something is wrong with my rig/implementation. If I can rule that out (maybe by replicating something else) I might publish the new results on the stuff I couldn't replicate.

    Consensus is built when a lot of publications agree on something, to the point where, if you aren't able to replicate it, you can feel quite positive it's because you're doing something wrong.

    Basically: The idea of waiting for consensus before publishing can't work, because consensus is formed by a bunch of people publishing. Once solid consensus is established, you'll have a hard time getting a journal to accept an article further confirming the consensus.