3 ms·

Honestly you need more than just one or two data points to conclude a substance is addictive. For pretty much anything you could always find a small number of p

Honestly you need more than just one or two data points to conclude a substance is addictive. For pretty much anything you could always find a small number of people who have trouble avoiding it.

Someone1234 7y ago
If you want to ignore the science, you can argue that soda isn't addictive. We know that sugar and caffeine each in isolation are addictive. We also know that the combination is addictive. But all the studies could also be "data points." It really comes down to how many data points you feel qualifies for legitimacy/where the threshold is. For example Caffeine: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/4/1144/4557113 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/4/1144/4557113 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S187620181630538X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18762... https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/262054?journalCode=jpe https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/262054?jou... Sugar: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976340... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026156140... https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/139/3/623/4670401 https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/139/3/623/4670401 Both together: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cdar/2011/00000004/00000003/art00003 https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cdar/2011/0000000... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987708003058 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03069... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-015-0634-5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-015-0634-5 Soda, specifically, hasn't got many studies that directly look at its addictiveness. But its ingredients (namely sugar and caffeine) have tons of studies and meta-studies that looked into them vis-a-vis food addiction, and most concluded there was some addictive/habit-forming properties.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  Where did I ignore science? My whole point was that you need to provide scientific evidence if you want to conclude a substance is addictive, not just 1 data point from yourself. Otherwise I would just cite myself because I stopped drinking soda the day I decided to and my body couldn't care less, and now we're back at square one.
  - newen 7y ago
    Just because someone says a fact and then a personal anecdote doesn't mean there isn't lots of scientific proof behind that fact. Not every comment needs to be someone stating a fact and then including pages of references supporting that fact.

Honestly you need more than just one or two data points to conclude a substance is addictive. For pretty much anything you could always find a small number of people who have trouble avoiding it.

Someone1234 7y ago

If you want to ignore the science, you can argue that soda isn't addictive. We know that sugar and caffeine each in isolation are addictive. We also know that the combination is addictive. But all the studies could also be "data points." It really comes down to how many data points you feel qualifies for legitimacy/where the threshold is. For example Caffeine: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/4/1144/4557113 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/4/1144/4557113 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S187620181630538X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18762... https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/262054?journalCode=jpe https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/262054?jou... Sugar: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976340... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026156140... https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/139/3/623/4670401 https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/139/3/623/4670401 Both together: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cdar/2011/00000004/00000003/art00003 https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cdar/2011/0000000... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987708003058 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03069... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-015-0634-5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-015-0634-5 Soda, specifically, hasn't got many studies that directly look at its addictiveness. But its ingredients (namely sugar and caffeine) have tons of studies and meta-studies that looked into them vis-a-vis food addiction, and most concluded there was some addictive/habit-forming properties.

mehrdadn 7y ago
Where did I ignore science? My whole point was that you need to provide scientific evidence if you want to conclude a substance is addictive, not just 1 data point from yourself. Otherwise I would just cite myself because I stopped drinking soda the day I decided to and my body couldn't care less, and now we're back at square one.
- newen 7y ago
  Just because someone says a fact and then a personal anecdote doesn't mean there isn't lots of scientific proof behind that fact. Not every comment needs to be someone stating a fact and then including pages of references supporting that fact.