Talk:Sugar high

The scientific studies need careful arranging to make the effects strong enough to externally observe the "high"
The "scientific double blind" which as quoted in the linked article could have numerous issues. To test this properly I'll detail the circumstances needed. My observations are as follows:

I consumed a great deal of sugar products as a kid and I remember there was no obvious effects that outsider could notice but there was definitely a subtle addictive effect - as in a craving for more sugary products after a while. The addiction comes back very quickly after sugary snacks, and the only cure is to not have any sugary products in the house, if there are any, one can't really resist eating them.

As an adult I have noticed the "rush" also and this was witnessed on a TV show Survivor (S25ep13) as well where the adult who was said to be sugar-free for years, consumed various such products on camera and experienced what I remember experiencing after being a month of sugar free and then consuming *Extreme* amounts of sugar (cooking accident). The effects were very similar, unstoppable giggling (I remember giggling for like 5 minutes straight even though I wanted to stop). Though if you just consume the sugar product and don't have some funny thing to initiate the giggling/laughter, then it may not happen - the point is, once it does start, you have no control over it when you are, "intoxicated" with sugar (after being sugar free, if you have sugar in regular diet this is much more unlikely to happen). Of course this goes away quickly but the craving for more sugary products will be there for few days atleast.

So proving this scientifically requires quite a bit of preparation and right circumstances. I doubt the studies so far have gone to such effort. It's also possible some people are more pre-disposed to the sugar effects. Personally I find that I have LESS focus to think through out the day when consuming even tiny amount sugar products, it clouds the thoughts for me but this is extremely subtle and you'd have to be doing some very serious intellectual work to notice this effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14B8:100:2A9:0:0:0:2 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And to me, the issue with sugar isn't some temporary high that outside can observe trivially, it's the subtle distraction/clouding of serious thinking (the kind of thinking that makes people depressed) and craving for more sugary product. Of course chocolate is another favorite of the depressed. It's a kind of subtle mind control to make you just happy enough with status quo to keep voting the same politicians and not be complaining about the injustices in the world.

There's a reason why those who don't take any narcotics or sugar/chocolate products are often cranky complainers. So no myth here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14B8:100:2A9:0:0:0:2 (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?
Sugar "highs" are absolutely placebo and are often noticed by parents who when told their child has ingested a large amount of sugar and suddenly they feel their children are being affected. The rationale for turning this article from a redirect to an article was an editor's original research stating (I'm paraphrasing) "they are very real, I've gotten high myself." I'm feeling this should go back to a redirect, or at the very least document the supposed effect and describe why it is a placebo. C6541 (T↔C)  18:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was bold and redirected to List_of_common_misconceptions which deals with this subject. C6541 (T↔C)  18:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is controversial and redirecting to misconceptions represents an unencyclopedic level of bias on the issue. Just because you have your opinion doesn't mean that you're right or that the original editor was wrong. Furthermore, at a purely logical level it would seem to make sense that the compound responsible for creating energy in the body, in elevated amounts, would elevate the person's level of energy and possibly the speed at which their CNS operates. 98.28.106.187 (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is substantial work ongoing on sugar metabolism, intrinsic reward systems, and addiction. This is indeed an area where the science is legitimately still very much in flux. We should not be dismissive of either perspective, but rather discuss the controversy and seek to make the findings clear in plain language. Some helpful sources:

LeadSongDog come howl!  14:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * PMID 20056521
 * PMID 21999689
 * PMID 21904085
 * is particularly illuminating.
 * is particularly illuminating.
 * is particularly illuminating.
 * is particularly illuminating.


 * Both the title and current lead etc surely need to change. If the page is going to be about genuine scientific research on sugar metabolism, intrinsic reward systems and addiction, then I don't think the title/topic should be the colloquial phrases sugar high / sugar rush, which don't seem to have been widely used in that sort of context except as allusions to popular culture (eg ). Of the PubMed results for either combination of words, the only one qualifying as a reliable medical source is picked up via the phrase "low- sugar high -fat milks" . Nor do Google Scholar  or Google Books suggest any more substantive scientific usage of the phrases.  —MistyMorn (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur, the term needs explanation and history, but the formal article title should probably be changed. There have been some direct uses in medical literature, e.g. PMID 14993076, but I don't see it in reviews except with poison quotes or as a ref to the pop literature term. Still, wp:COMMONNAME might come into play, there's room for a GF discussion. Also, much of the literature on addiction and behavioural topics is in non-pubmed-indexed psych journals. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. First, there is the anecdotal bit, which turns it heavily towards pseudoscience. Then, a minimal mention of insulin rebound effects being hinted to at the end of the article. Sucrose, glucose, whatever sugar is metabolized into glucose and used as fuel. Like a car, the fuel is limited by the "carburetor", insulin. Like a car, you can have a gallon of fuel or 300 gallons, the carburetor will let the fuel be used at a specific rate. Now, add to that the dearth of well respected sources into the mix, we're moving toward deletion land. Or at least mentioning zero evidence to support the theory, just as phrenology has been proved false by a lack of valid, scientific proof. Medicine is science. This is medicine. Science is evidence based and has well respected sources reporting on valid studies. None exist to support the notion of the "Sugar high" whatsoever.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing to consider

 * Lénárd L, Karádi Z. Regulatory processes of hunger motivated behavior. Acta Biol Hung. 2012;63 Suppl 1:80-8. PMID 22453743 (Review) - looks useful from preview page, need full text,
 * White AA, Nitzke S, Peterson KE. Are soft drinks getting a bum rap? We don't think so. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2004 Sep-Oct;36(5):266-71. PMID 15707550
 * Oomura, Y., Nishino, H., Aou, S., Lénárd, L. (1986) Opiate mechanism in reward related neuronal responses during operant feeding behavior of the monkey. 1986 Feb 19;365(2):335-9. PMID 3947997
 * Johnson RK, Frary C. Choose beverages and foods to moderate your intake of sugars: the 2000 dietary guidelines for Americans--what's all the fuss about? J Nutr. 2001 Oct;131(10):2766S-2771S. PMID 11584103

Alternative title possibilities
We should brainstorm some other possibilities, please list ideas. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Glucose monitoring network

changes
Okay I cut out a a lot of the info box stuff because this page isn't about sucrose in specific. I also removed lot of OR and what not. So please instead of reverting everything just add verifiable info to the article and perhaps discuss it here. Thanks, C6541 (T↔C)  14:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)