• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | thegreenhand

Is sugar a drug (i.e. psychoactive)?

Sugar is not a drug. I don't care what the people with an antisugar political point to make say, it's not.

It may well be addictive, it may well be harmful in high doses. But trying to say it's a drug is bullshit. It's playing with the definition of a drug cause you have some problem with sugar and apparently it's not enough to make a point with all the real harms sugar causes, you gotta turn it into dishonest propaganda too.

It's not a drug, it's not psychoactive. Gambling has an effect on the brain, it's addictive, it's harmful. But it's not a drug. Trying to pretend it is is just working off a mindset that's fundamentally running backwards. Instead of thinking of sugar and gambling as harmful addictive things along with drugs you're thinking drugs are harmful and addictive and so gambling and sugar must be like drugs. It's crap.

That all said though, a lot of the anti sugar shit is bullshit too. It can be harmful, it is harmful to a lot of people. But in addition to not being a drug, it is also an important part of our diet. And it doesn't HAVE to be harmful. It is to many people, but it's not to many others.
 
You don't have to "play" with the definition, it just matters which one you use. Gambling is not matter, which is why its not a drug. And drugs aren't inherently bad, dangerous, unhealthy, addictive, harmful, etc. so whether or not sugar is a drug has nothing to do with your anti-anti-sugar paranoia.

Defition of a drug from Oxyford University Press:

1. a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body:

You are going to tell me sugar doesn't fit that bill?? lol

And sugar isn't psychoactive(when you just admitted it may, reality: is, be additive)? definition:

1. affecting the mind.
 
The human body actually developed the ability to metabolise ethanol in order to use it for nutritional purposes.

It sounds like our bodies ability to utilize toxins and naturally healthy substances by adapting to them, pulling as much nutrition out of them as we could and even adapt to processing the (some degree of) toxicity, is great, but with today's knowledge we can use more or less of them due to knowing things like long term effects on the mind and body.

So just like someone said earlier, when people chewed cocoa leaf for what I'm assuming was a pretty smooth, lightweight? (by comparison) buzz, that technically still had some blanket lightweight risks, was nutritional with some bonuses on the side.

That was fine. Now take a billion (IDFK) leafs and process them and it is a different story.

Isn't that the same thing we do with sugar?

So just based off that analogy, one form, this case an apple is natural with unprocessed sugar in it compared to its processed form like some form like full flavored soda pop that has like 40 grams of sugar in it, per serving.

Natural state nutritional (to a point). Processed, is as close to a drug as you can get.

People use natural and drug interchangeably. Just pecause certain high level administrations try's to tell you what is and isn't good for you and what is and isn't a drug doesn't mean they are always correct. In fact they can be off by a mile.

Read up on Nutrasweet.

. Hey guys, we did all these tests with horrible fucking outcomes on animals so hey public, here you go.

Makes me wonder if they always classify things correctly.
 
You don't have to "play" with the definition, it just matters which one you use. Gambling is not matter, which is why its not a drug. And drugs aren't inherently bad, dangerous, unhealthy, addictive, harmful, etc. so whether or not sugar is a drug has nothing to do with your anti-anti-sugar paranoia.

Defition of a drug from Oxyford University Press:

1. a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body:

You are going to tell me sugar doesn't fit that bill?? lol

And sugar isn't psychoactive(when you just admitted it may, reality: is, be additive)? definition:

1. affecting the mind.

Is oxygen a drug?

You're playing a game of semantics.
 
Words having meanings, sorry, I didn't create language. If you want to get more specific and then do a comparison, go ahead. What properties of "drugs" are you wondering if sugar has in common? Or saying it doesn't share? We've already established that it shares MANY of the same properties of "drugs"; addictive, dangerous when not used in moderation, affects mood, acutely alters brain activity, produces changes in hormone levels, metabolism, epipgenetics, etc. Almost none of those things are true for oxygen(until you start radically changing blood levels of it, but even then its much farther from a drug than sugar is), and oxygen is absolutely administered medicinally. Are you asking of atmospheric oxygen is a drug, or pure 02? No one would argue that other gasses are not drugs when administered in levels different than found in nature, so why would oxygen be any different? If you want to proffer your own definition of a drug, and then do a comparison, be my guest, but I think you will come to the same conclusion that is found in my first post.
 
I dare you to take a huge dose of insulin to "confirm" your beliefs, lol.

I genuinely would actually be up for doing this. It would be nice to see the extent to which my body has adapted.
 
^I think in order for that to be a 100% valid experiment the only effect of insulin would have to be lowering blood glucose, which I think is far from its only effect.

If there was a way to selectively lower blood glucose then that would be a better experiment.
 
"Evidence that intermittent, excessive sugar intake causes endogenous opioid dependence."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12055324/

"DISCUSSION:
Repeated, excessive intake of sugar created a state in which an opioid antagonist caused behavioral and neurochemical signs of opioid withdrawal. The indices of anxiety and DA/ACh imbalance were qualitatively similar to withdrawal from morphine or nicotine, suggesting that the rats had become sugar-dependent."
 
^The other thing is that the insulin sensitivity should increase while avoiding carbs so one would be even more vulnerable to the effects of insulin.
 
Sugar is definitely a drug. It is an opiod agonist. On top of that it carries the risk of a myriad of health issues that opiates dont carry. But an addiction will not effect your performance short term as much as opiates would.
 
Sugar is definitely a drug. It is an opiod agonist. On top of that it carries the risk of a myriad of health issues that opiates dont carry. But an addiction will not effect your performance short term as much as opiates would.

Evidence? I don’t see how it could be an opioid agonist.

I still maintain that if you broaden the definition of drug wide enough as to include sugar. Then the word drug applies to nearly everything you can consume. And so ceases to have useful meaning.
 
Evidence? I don’t see how it could be an opioid agonist.

I assume he/she meant that it induces the release of endogenous opioids following consumption, not that it actually binds to opioid receptors.
 
I assume he/she meant that it induces the release of endogenous opioids following consumption, not that it actually binds to opioid receptors.

I think so too. But “opioid agonist” is a very technical term. And as a technical term it is either right or wrong. In this case wrong.

And as far as being a drug or not. Like I said. I feel if we go by “causes endorphins to be released” as enough to make it a drug then the word drug loses any useful meaning. Exercise is a drug. Sex is a drug. Getting some good news that makes you happy is a drug. No point having a word that’s that broad. We already have a word for that. “Pleasurable”.
 
I think so too. But “opioid agonist” is a very technical term. And as a technical term it is either right or wrong. In this case wrong.

And as far as being a drug or not. Like I said. I feel if we go by “causes endorphins to be released” as enough to make it a drug then the word drug loses any useful meaning. Exercise is a drug. Sex is a drug. Getting some good news that makes you happy is a drug. No point having a word that’s that broad. We already have a word for that. “Pleasurable”.

I completely agree with you.
 
I still maintain what I said to start with. That people are looking at it wrong. People just LOOVE going to extremes. Extremes are simple, reality is all gray and complicated. So we love to take complicated things and simplify them so they are easier to digest.

Is sugar inherently bad? No.
Is our relationship with sugar in our society harmful? Absolutely.
Is it a drug? No.
Do we misuse it like a drug? A lot of us do yeah.
Does it affect the brain? Yep, just as everything you see, feel or experience in absolutely any way does.
Should we as a society do something about our misuse of sugar? Yes.
Should we eliminate sugar from our diet? No.

What IS the technical definition of a sugar? Almost nobody can tell you. But without specification in this context I’m gonna assume we’re mostly talking about sucrose.

Do we HAVE to oversimplify everything to comprehend the problem? No.
And can sucrose, glucose, etc be said to be a psychoactive compound in a way that preserves the integrity of how we would generally use the word psychoactive, without broadening it to become confusing and worthless? I’m gonna once again say no. (Keeping in mind the thread title does actually helpfully specify a definition of drug by including the word psychoactive).
 
What IS the technical definition of a sugar? Almost nobody can tell you. But without specification in this context I’m gonna assume we’re mostly talking about sucrose.

In animal biology, and humans in particular, the only form of sugar that is stored in cells (as glycogen) and utilized in metabolic processes is glucose; in this context, a dietary sugar (monosaccharide) which the body can use in cellular metabolism would be any monosaccharide that is enzymatically converted to glucose during digestion.

Humans and other animals produce glucose, whereas fructose and sucrose are produced in a number of plants species and sugar cane, respectively.
 
Its hard to say if its truly psychoactive but I doubt it. When I eat sweets I enjoy the taste and the way I feel for a short while afterwords and I do notice a profound difference in my mood sometimes. The amount of sugar has a huge impact in how I feel after. A little sugar gives me some energy, like a mild caffeine kick. When I've had lots of sweets I feel energy for a very short few minutes, then a sedating crash which lasts for a few hours. I actually enjoy the feeling of this crash while a lot of others don't. A white powder with no nutritional value, that's addictive but its still pure calories, half a drug half a food lol.
 
By common use of the word psychoactive, sugar would not meet the qualifications. It does not cross the blood brain barrier nor does it have any direct action on the brain. It may indirectly cause the release of neurotransmitters, but so does eating food in general as well as certain activities like running.

Whether it is healthy or not has nothing to do with the question of whether it is a drug or not. There are tons of things that are not healthy or even harmful to the human body but are not drugs nor psychoactive.
 
In animal biology, and humans in particular, the only form of sugar that is stored in cells (as glycogen) and utilized in metabolic processes is glucose; in this context, a dietary sugar (monosaccharide) which the body can use in cellular metabolism would be any monosaccharide that is enzymatically converted to glucose during digestion.

Humans and other animals produce glucose, whereas fructose and sucrose are produced in a number of plants species and sugar cane, respectively.

Yes I know but that's kinda my point. If this kind shit were widely known. We wouldn't be having this conversation nor most stupid conversations around sugar in mainstream society. Not to mention all the retarded shit about shit like aspartame of which I remain the only person I've met who could even pronounce it.

But the question is is sugar psychoactive. Presumably this refers to table sugar, which is sucrose. In which case no it is not.
 
Top