3 ms·

> In a 2013 review of published research, scientists affiliated with France’s national scientific institute wrote that sugar and sweets “can not only substitute

by md224 10y ago

> In a 2013 review of published research, scientists affiliated with France’s national scientific institute wrote that sugar and sweets “can not only substitute [for] addictive drugs, like cocaine, but can even be more rewarding and attractive.” Although sugar is “clearly not as behaviorally and psychologically toxic,” cravings for it can be just as intense, they said. So... how do we measure behavioral and psychological toxicity? What does that actually mean? Feels like they're trying to escape cognitive dissonance with weasel words here.

trhway 10y ago
i see the following difference here: craving - how long you can resist consuming the substance giving for example $1K/per minute reward for every minute you resist :) It seems that they are saying that cocaine and sweets are the same. behavioral and psychological toxicity - the "bad" consequences, internal and external, associated with the habit of consumption of the substance. We do know that these consequences are different between cocaine and sweets.
- md224 10y ago
  Thanks for the reply, but this still doesn't clarify anything... what is "behavioral and psychological toxicity"? I was under the impression that the "bad consequences" of these drugs was the risk of damage to the body, but the phrasing implies that they're not talking about physical/physiological toxicity. So what's left? Does using cocaine turn you into an asshole or something? What behavioral/psychological changes are there beyond those associated with the regular consumption of any addictive substance?
  - ddebernardy 10y ago
    > What behavioral/psychological changes are there beyond those associated with the regular consumption of any addictive substance? Not many, and that's precisely the point: in terms of additivity, the neural receptors involved are essentially the same as those involved in other drugs; and in terms of toxicity, it's metabolized essentially the same as alcohol. Give a fruit juice or a whisky to a 4-year old, and it's about the same (minus the dizzy high of/c).
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - md224 10y ago
      I agree, which is why I was trying to point out that the authors were using this BS idea of "behavioral/psychological toxicity" to try to explain why sugar wasn't really the same kind of thing as cocaine or other addictive drugs. I'm annoyed that they shied away from this equivalence, but not because I want people to treat sugar like it's an addictive drug... I want people to recognize that being addicted to something (like sugar or cocaine or alcohol or coffee) is not the great evil it's made out to be, and to realize that our drug laws are completely incoherent. The authors use weasel words to avoid equating sugar and cocaine because then people would wonder why one is legal/normalized and the other is illegal/stigmatized. They have to find some way to maintain the distinction.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by md224 10y ago

trhway 10y ago

i see the following difference here: craving - how long you can resist consuming the substance giving for example $1K/per minute reward for every minute you resist :) It seems that they are saying that cocaine and sweets are the same. behavioral and psychological toxicity - the "bad" consequences, internal and external, associated with the habit of consumption of the substance. We do know that these consequences are different between cocaine and sweets.

md224 10y ago
Thanks for the reply, but this still doesn't clarify anything... what is "behavioral and psychological toxicity"? I was under the impression that the "bad consequences" of these drugs was the risk of damage to the body, but the phrasing implies that they're not talking about physical/physiological toxicity. So what's left? Does using cocaine turn you into an asshole or something? What behavioral/psychological changes are there beyond those associated with the regular consumption of any addictive substance?
- ddebernardy 10y ago
  > What behavioral/psychological changes are there beyond those associated with the regular consumption of any addictive substance? Not many, and that's precisely the point: in terms of additivity, the neural receptors involved are essentially the same as those involved in other drugs; and in terms of toxicity, it's metabolized essentially the same as alcohol. Give a fruit juice or a whisky to a 4-year old, and it's about the same (minus the dizzy high of/c).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - md224 10y ago
    I agree, which is why I was trying to point out that the authors were using this BS idea of "behavioral/psychological toxicity" to try to explain why sugar wasn't really the same kind of thing as cocaine or other addictive drugs. I'm annoyed that they shied away from this equivalence, but not because I want people to treat sugar like it's an addictive drug... I want people to recognize that being addicted to something (like sugar or cocaine or alcohol or coffee) is not the great evil it's made out to be, and to realize that our drug laws are completely incoherent. The authors use weasel words to avoid equating sugar and cocaine because then people would wonder why one is legal/normalized and the other is illegal/stigmatized. They have to find some way to maintain the distinction.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]