Talk:Sugar addiction/Archive 1

A Mess
This page is a mess, many changes to come - slowly. Elejew (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"ADDICTION"
"Addiction" has a specific medical meaning. I am not a doctor and haven't researched this, but I don't believe sugar meets that definition. We need to steer some kind of midway course. The sugar manufacturers would have us believe that sugar is a perfectly healthy substance that has nothing to do with obesity. Sugar may, in fact, have harmful effects, but that is not the same thing as saying that it is addictive. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sugar! Must have sugar! Must have it! Can't live without it! Sugarrr! My preciousssssssss! Gollum! Gollum!

There needs to be more discussion on whether it's possible to get addicted to the sugar from fruit. I find myself eating too many bananas everyday. 68.170.0.238 08:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you suffer from potassium addiction? GraemeLeggett 09:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I am sure it is a sugar addiction ... Of course I'm avoiding all refined sugars. 68.170.0.238 20:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting to notice how soft drinks with sugar on the American continent are more common and less expensive than bottled water. Also interesting are the studies suggesting links between diabetes and addiction to soft drinks (even those without caffeine). There also are known problems related to eating candies and drinking soft drinks instead of healthy, complete foods (the sugar levels increase dramatically quickly in the blood, to very soon drop back rapidly again, unlike the longer term energy provided by complete foods for instance). Relatively high Insulin levels can be produced by the body when the blood sugar is excessively high, which can also afterwards cause Hypoglycemia-like temporary symptoms... This doesn't eliminate the fact that glucose-fructose (sucrose or table sugar) is extracted from naturally occuring sources, but moderation is necessary for most (if not all) natural ingredients as well, some because of potential toxicity, others because of their interraction with other compounds, metabolism, etc. Since sugar is a high source of calories, which can provide short term energy, relying on sugar by habit to provide energy, instead of eating complete foods, can lead to a variety of malnutrition related problems, obviously. There also can be a similar problem with starches which are very rapidly absorbed and converted to sugar. Some food sources are too high in starches and too low in proteins and other vital nutrients, and should not be considered adequate meals by themselves. These leads are from memory, but with some research and time it would be nice to back the relevant ideas with reliable references and expand the article... --66.11.179.30 20:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * All of this falls far short of indicating that sugar is "addictive." Before you are born, you do not need any air. Once you take that first breath, you are hooked and need to keep breathing it, to the extent that you will die if it is withdrawn. That does not make air "addictive." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Air is necessary to life, as is water. Addiction is precisely what happens when something which is not necessary feels to us as if it were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.1.172.198 (talk • contribs)


 * Perhaps the title should be changed to involve some form of excessive consumption. The thought that one can be addicted to sugar in general is preposterous, but an addiction to consumption of large amounts or concentrations of sugar would make some sense.  This is similar to how sleep medications become addictive in nature; one alone does nothing, but taking them on a regular basis can lock one into it. Daivox 20:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing preposterous about the idea of sugar addiction. It may or may not exist, but the idea is not preposterous. What is preposterous is the idea that "large amounts" would be addictive while the thing itself isn't. Some people can have a bit of tobacco, or coffee, or opium, once in a while, and never become addicted, but these things tend to create addiction and the result of addiction is that one has more and more of them. Still, the addictive quality is in the thing, not in the quantity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.1.172.198 (talk • contribs)


 * Addiction is characterized by excessive consumption. There is of course a debate surrounding how exactly addiction should be defined and as to what it is, but nevertheless, some (perhaps most notably Hobel's group) have argued that there is solid scientific evidence an addiction to sugar. Not to mention that the idea has existed in the public psyche for quite some time. This page needs to be revamped and over the coming months I will dedicate myself to the process Elejew (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * there is nothing specially interesting about price difference between sugary drinks and water. It likely has to do with class background of consumers - poorer people buy drinks, and health-conscious people who are richer, more snobbish and prone to believe BS like "price is proof of quality" buy bottled water. Sure enough, stuff for the poor is cheap and stuff for the rich is overpriced to the max. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dubious
I believe that, if someone has binge-eating disorder, doctors should diagnose them with binge-eating disorder.

I agree that sugar may be addictive; but I am unconvinced that doctors should single out certain people and claim that they have a "sugar addiction".

I am also unconvinced that doctors agree that such a thing as "sugar addiction" exists. The only review article I recall having ever seen on the topic (the one by Nicole M. Avena, Pedro Rada, and Bartley G. Hoebel) makes clear that sugar may be addictive, but makes no claim that we should start diagnose certain people with a "sugar addiction".

Dear : Have you ever actually read all six paragraphs of WP:MEDPRI?

WP:MEDRS says, "All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources." Can anyone find a peer-reviewed secondary source which says that such a thing as "sugar addiction" exists? Otherwise, I guess we shall have to revert to my favored revision.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My issue is not with your claims that the article does not meet MEDRS, it's with the text you changed it to. I agreed with your removal of primary sources.  However, using the phrase "purported disease" is POV, you do original research by summarizing and critiquing the methods of a primary source in a reference, and you added a paragraph about MEDRS in the article (which does not belong).  Moreover, you basically nuked the entire page instead of trying to improve it.  I admit I know very little about the topic, but I know POV edits when I see them.  I thank you for removing the inappropriate further readings, but strongly disagreed with your erasure of the body of the page.  Perhaps we can request the WikiProject Medicine to come improve the article? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You make some very good points, especially about the fact that nuking the page was silly. Still, the first sentence of the article is completely unsourced. Wikipedia policy states that disputed unsourced information can be removed from an article; but, if I removed the first sentence of the article, a gaping hole would be left. I don't really like the first sentence of GeorgeStepanek's old proposed version, since it fails to mention that doctors think "sugar addiction" is a silly diagnosis. Gazpacho says we should explain the popular-vs.-scientific distinction, and I like that idea. Yes, calling in WikiProject Medicine would definitely be helpful. I guess the question we should ask them is: If some popular works speak about a "disease", but the majority of doctors think it would be silly to start diagnosing people with that "disease", then what should Wikipedia do? Perhaps there is some precedent elsewhere on Wikipedia which can inform us. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Specificity
Found this article when researching a potential hoax about "sugar addiction". When the original site was discussing the biochemical effects, they neglected to specify WHICH sugar, and i was hoping this article could clear it up. unfortunately, there's very little information here on the original paper discussing dopamine effects of "sugar" and which specific sugars (Sucrose, Fructose, Glucose, etc). I don't have the background to do the research, but it seems like this article is going to need some attention as these questionable adds become more common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.133.130 (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Sugar addiction" is speculative
To present the existence of this condition as an established medical fact is false.

I've included sources. Please don't contradict & change without acceptable sources.

Also, please don't "message" me. I'd rather remain ignorant of activity here.

Thank! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.131.225.246 (talk • contribs)
 * You must provide sources for that. You cannot just claim it's speculative.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)