The Not-So-Sweet Science Of Sugar Addiction

Dive into the compelling debate on sugar’s addictive qualities in our latest research-based insights, where fact meets myth.
The image displays a grouping of sweet sugar cubes and a small tong, with the text "SUGAR ADDICTION" in bold, capitalized letters. In the bottom right corner, there is an icon depicting 10 almonds. The background is a gradient of light blue.

One Lump Mechanism Of Addiction Or Two?

In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you to what extent, if any, you believe sugar is addictive; we got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

  • About 47% said “Sugar is chemically addictive, comparable to alcohol”
  • About 34% said “Sugar is chemically addictive, comparable to cocaine”
  • About 11% said “Sugar is not addictive; that’s just excuse-finding hyperbole”
  • About 9% said “Sugar is a behavioral addiction, comparable to video gaming”

So what does the science say?

Sugar is not addictive; that’s just excuse-finding hyperbole: True or False?

False, by broad scientific consensus. As ever, the devil’s in the details definitions, but while there is still discussion about how best to categorize the addiction, the scientific consensus as a whole is generally: sugar is addictive.

That doesn’t mean scientists* are a hive mind, and so there will be some who disagree, but most papers these days are looking into the “hows” and “whys” and “whats” of sugar addiction, not the “whether”.

*who are also, let us remember, a diverse group including chemists, neurobiologists, psychologists, social psychologists, and others, often collaborating in multidisciplinary teams, each with their own focus of research.

Here’s what the Center of Alcohol and Substance Use Studies has to say, for example:

Sugar Addiction: More Serious Than You Think

Sugar is a chemical addiction, comparable to alcohol: True or False?

True, broadly, with caveats—for this one, the crux lies in “comparable to”, because the neurology of the addiction is similar, even if many aspects of it chemically are not.

In both cases, sugar triggers the release of dopamine while also (albeit for different chemical reasons) having a “downer” effect (sugar triggers the release of opioids as well as dopamine).

Notably, the sociology and psychology of alcohol and sugar addictions are also similar (both addictions are common throughout different socioeconomic strata as a coping mechanism seeking an escape from emotional pain).

See for example in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs:

Sweet Preference, Sugar Addiction and the Familial History of Alcohol Dependence: Shared Neural Pathways and Genes

On the other hand, withdrawal symptoms from heavy long-term alcohol abuse can kill, while withdrawal symptoms from sugar are very much milder. So there’s also room to argue that they’re not comparable on those grounds.

Sugar is a chemical addiction, comparable to cocaine: True or False?

False, broadly. There are overlaps! For example, sugar drives impulsivity to seek more of the substance, and leads to changes in neurobiological brain function which alter emotional states and subsequent behaviours:

The impact of sugar consumption on stress driven, emotional and addictive behaviors

However!

Cocaine triggers a release of dopamine (as does sugar), but cocaine also acts directly on our brain’s ability to remove dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine:

The Neurobiology of Cocaine Addiction

…meaning that in terms of comparability, they (to use a metaphor now, not meaning this literally) both give you a warm feeling, but sugar does it by turning up the heating a bit whereas cocaine does it by locking the doors and burning down the house. That’s quite a difference!

Sugar is a behavioral addiction, comparable to video gaming: True or False?

True, with the caveat that this a “yes and” situation.

There are behavioral aspects of sugar addiction that can reasonably be compared to those of video gaming, e.g. compulsion loops, always the promise of more (without limiting factors such as overdosing), anxiety when the addictive element is not accessible for some reason, reduction of dopaminergic sensitivity leading to a craving for more, etc. Note that the last is mentioning a chemical but the mechanism itself is still behavioral, not chemical per se.

So, yes, it’s a behavioral addiction [and also arguably chemical in the manners we’ve described earlier in this article].

For science for this, we refer you back to:

The impact of sugar consumption on stress driven, emotional and addictive behaviors

Want more?

You might want to check out:

Beating Food Addictions: When It’s More Than “Just” Cravings

Take care!

Share This Post

  • Rosehip: A potent anti-inflammatory for osteoarthritis, anti-aging wonder for skin, and a heart health ally.

Learn To Grow

Sign up for weekly gardening tips, product reviews and discounts.

  • Stop Cancer 20 Years Ago

    Dr. Jenn Simmons shares vital tips on preventing cancer and inflammation, advocating for lifestyle changes and proactive health management at any age.

    Get Abreast And Keep Abreast

    This is Dr. Jenn Simmons. Her specialization is integrative oncology, as she—then a breast cancer surgeon—got breast cancer, decided the system wasn’t nearly as good from the patients’ side of things as from the doctors’ side, and took to educate herself, and now others, on how things can be better.

    What does she want us to know?

    Start now

    If you have breast cancer, the best time to start adjusting your lifestyle might be 20 years ago, but the second-best time is now. We realize our readers with breast cancer (or a history thereof) probably have indeed started already—all strength to you.

    What this means for those of us without breast cancer (or a history therof) is: start now

    Even if you don’t have a genetic risk factor, even if there’s no history of it in your family, there’s just no reason not to start now.

    Start what, you ask? Taking away its roots. And how?

    Inflammation as the root of cancer

    To oversimplify: cancer occurs because an accidentally immortal cell replicates and replicates and replicates and takes any nearby resources to keep on going. While science doesn’t know all the details of how this happens, it is a factor of genetic mutation (itself a normal process, without which evolution would be impossible), something which in turn is accelerated by damage to the DNA. The damage to the DNA? That occurs (often as not) as a result of cellular oxidation. Cellular oxidation is far from the only genotoxic thing out there, and a lot of non-food “this thing causes cancer” warnings are usually about other kinds of genotoxicity. But cellular oxidation is a big one, and it’s one that we can fight vigorously with our lifestyle.

    Because cellular oxidation and inflammation go hand-in-hand, reducing one tends to reduce the other. That’s why so often you’ll see in our Research Review Monday features, a line that goes something like:

    “and now for those things that usually come together: antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, and anti-aging”

    So, fight inflammation now, and have a reduced risk of a lot of other woes later.

    See: How to Prevent (or Reduce) Inflammation

    Don’t settle for “normal”

    People are told, correctly but not always helpfully, such things as:

    • It’s normal to have less energy at your age
    • It’s normal to have a weaker immune system at your age
    • It’s normal to be at a higher risk of diabetes, heart disease, etc

    …and many more. And these things are true! But that doesn’t mean we have to settle for them.

    We can be all the way over on the healthy end of the distribution curve. We can do that!

    (so can everyone else, given sufficient opportunity and resources, because health is not a zero-sum game)

    If we’re going to get a cancer diagnosis, then our 60s are the decade where we’re most likely to get it. Earlier than that and the risk is extant but lower; later than that and technically the risk increases, but we probably got it already in our 60s.

    So, if we be younger than 60, then now’s a good time to prepare to hit the ground running when we get there. And if we missed that chance, then again, the second-best time is now:

    See: Focusing On Health In Our Sixties

    Fast to live

    Of course, anything can happen to anyone at any age (alas), but this is about the benefits of living a fasting lifestyle—that is to say, not just fasting for a 4-week health kick or something, but making it one’s “new normal” and just continuing it for life.

    This doesn’t mean “never eat”, of course, but it does mean “practice intermittent fasting, if you can”—something that Dr. Simmons strongly advocates.

    See: Intermittent Fasting: We Sort The Science From The Hype

    While this calls back to the previous “fight inflammation”, it deserves its own mention here as a very specific way of fighting it.

    It’s never too late

    All of the advices that go before a cancer diagnosis, continue to stand afterwards too. There is no point of “well, I already have cancer, so what’s the harm in…?”

    The harm in it after a diagnosis will be the same as the harm before. When it comes to lifestyle, preventing a cancer and preventing it from spreading are very much the same thing, which is also the same as shrinking it. Basically, if it’s anticancer, it’s anticancer, no matter whether it’s before, during, or after.

    Dr. Simmons has seen too many patients get a diagnosis, and place their lives squarely in the hands of doctors, when doctors can only do so much.

    Instead, Dr. Simmons recommends taking charge of your health as best you are able, today and onwards, no matter what. And that means two things:

    1. Knowing stuff
    2. Doing stuff

    So it becomes our responsibility (and our lifeline) to educate ourselves, and take action accordingly.

    Want to know more?

    We recently reviewed her book, and heartily recommend it:

    The Smart Woman’s Guide to Breast Cancer – by Dr. Jenn Simmons

    Enjoy!