I challenge anyone who says sugar isn’t addictive to go a week without. No sugar. No sugar substitutes like fructose. I’ve done it. It is awful.

I’ve also done hard drugs. Quitting those are awful too.

The difference is that I haven’t done drugs in decades but I still have a pack of Oreos on my counter.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10284150500485221

Studies done on mice, and mice addiction to sugar, and mice addiction to other drugs. Are these studies directly applicable to humans? That's a good debate, it's hard to say. But the studies do show that mice have a stronger preference to sugar than to other drugs.

I do keto, I go for the absolute absence of sugar, try to get less than 20 grams per day.

The first two weeks is very difficult. Especially the first 3 to 4 days. We're talking hallucinations almost, deep cravings, it's very difficult to kick the habit. I can't compare it to other addictions, but the effect is very real.

The thing that really causes addiction isn't so much the physical dependence, but the psychological dependence.

Almost all drugs (including Cocaine) have only very short term withdrawal effects. If it was only physical dependence, all you'd have to do to break any substance addiction is to lock that person up for a few weeks, until the drugs are out of the system and that's that.

The long-term effects are purely psychological. Usually, your life is shit, you got some pretty heavy problems or you have other psychologial issues like depression. And you know that substance X will help you to feel good, even if only for a short time. So you take the substance again to forget and feel good.

Because of this, you can get severely addicted to stuff like gaming, smartphones, social media, shopping or gambling, even though there is no substance involved at all.

Remeber the high-profile study about a rat that was locked alone in an empty cage and the only things it had available to distract itself from it's misery where a bottle of regular water and one filled with cocaine water.

The rat used cocaine until it died of an overdose.

This experiment was repeated, but this time there was a whole rat family in a really nice cage with a lot of things to do. This time some of the rats did a bit of cocaine sometimes, but never in excess and no rat overdosed.

Sugar, together with the physical withdrawals (which do really exist), is really tough on the psychological side due to its extremely easy availability and omnipresence.

To get cocaine you need to find a dealer, spend a rather big amount of money and you are always aware that if you are caught, there are some very serious consequences.

To get sugar, you walk into the kitchen. Worst case, you go down to the next shop, spendless than an Euro on the substance and consume it completely legal without fear of any repercussions.

Or you wait until someone gifts you some sugar for birthday, Christmas, Easter, or any other holiday. Or just because they are nice.

This super easy availability means, there are hardly any barriers where you can say "Actually, I wanted to stop" and stop what you are doing.

Sugar addiction is not the same as a drug that causes physiologic dependence, like cocaine or opiates.

But

You can become addicted to sugar, or anything that makes you feel good, because you’re basically hacking into the cocaine repository that’s already in your brain. Anything that triggers a hit of dopamine and/or noradrenaline - gambling, shopping, sex, food, weed - can cause addictive behavior, but you’re essentially addicted to your own neurotransmitters and not the thing itself.

I want to respond to your edit:

wait for consensus before you publish, don't publish anything that isn't peer reviewed and replicated multiple times.

You need to understand that publishing is the way scientists communicate among each other. Of course, all reputable journals conduct peer review before publishing, but peer review is just that: Review. The peer review process is meant to uncover obviously bad, or poorly communicated, research.

Replication happens when other scientists read the paper and decide to replicate. In fact, by far most replication is likely never published, because it is done as a part of model/rig verification and testing. For example: If I implement a model or build an experimental rig and want to make sure I did it right, I'll go replicate some work to test it. If I successfully replicate I'm probably not going to spend time publishing that, because I built the rig/implemented to model to do my own research. If I'm unable to replicate, I'll first assume something is wrong with my rig/implementation. If I can rule that out (maybe by replicating something else) I might publish the new results on the stuff I couldn't replicate.

Consensus is built when a lot of publications agree on something, to the point where, if you aren't able to replicate it, you can feel quite positive it's because you're doing something wrong.

Basically: The idea of waiting for consensus before publishing can't work, because consensus is formed by a bunch of people publishing. Once solid consensus is established, you'll have a hard time getting a journal to accept an article further confirming the consensus.

People have left some great comments here so to add: when the body gets something it needs nutrition-wise, it releases dopamine. We know this, that’s why we enjoy eating (pretty good biological functioning). However, there is diminishing returns on most things. The first steak you eat: delicious. Hell the first bite is the best. Every next bite, every consecutive steak, you get less and less dopamine release because your body recognizes it doesn’t need that nutrient as much. Drugs however (disregarding tolerance and dopamine fatigue because those work through different mechanisms) do not do this. There is no evening out or plateau on dopamine release for cocaine for instance. Sugar works the same way. No slowing or plateau. So in a very real and bio mechanical way, sugar is very analogous to drugs.

I was able to quit cocaine, cigarettes, and alcohol and of those 3, cigarettes was the hardest to quit, with alcohol being a close second. I don't want to get into a discussion about the roles of behavioral addiction vs. chemical addiction when trying to quit something, but sugar has been just as difficult as alcohol and nicotine, if not more so. It doesn't help that it is seemingly everywhere and included in all the food. It's not as easy as "I'll just stop having ice cream", of course anyone can do that. If you start paying attention to all the foods sugar is added too and try to avoid those foods, you really have to completely rethink your whole approach to food (where to buy, the role it plays in your life, i.e. why you eat) and spend a lot more energy trying to find "healthy" foods.

I've yet to see someone blowing people in a parking lot for caster sugar, so I can't see how it's as addictive as hard drugs.

I think when people make those headlines they forget that sugar is essential to the human body. It's a nutrient. As far as I know you don't get a deficiency disorder if you don't use cocaine ever.

The problem is with the way our society is structured now: it's hard to not rely on processed foods with tons of sugar and salt because most people don't feel like they'd ever have to the time to prepare a healthy meal.

When I gave up drinking I developed an overwhelming craving for sugar because it, apparently, hits the same dopamine buttons. I, ultimately, found giving up booze easier than sugar because it's not socially acceptable to give those in recovery a bottle of wine as a present but people don't think twice about giving you some chocolate. I've had to be explicit about this now.

In some ways the ease of access and social accessibility are key - I had a chat with a couple of former heroin addicts about addiction and they found stopping smoking harder. You can quite the heroin lifestyle but (back before the smoking ban and the rise of vaping) it was very easy to have a few drinks, accept the offer of a cigarette and before you know it, you are working through a pack of 20.

Also, never underestimate Big Sugar, they will use all the dirty tricks Big Tobacco used to avoid bans in smoking, with similar disastrous consequences for our health.

I'm addicted to air. At some point I'll kick the addiction.

It depends on the person. For me, not really. I get mild cravings but they're easy to overcome.

What really helps is having something sweet that has no added sugars, like fruit or natural sweeteners like stevia or monk fruit or some-such. That way you can have the taste of sweet without all of the baggage.

I am pretty sure it's the taste of sweet that's addictive and not the actual sugar.

To answer your question, no, it is not and never will be as addictive as hard drugs.

Not only is it hard to kick the habit, it's incredibly hard just to avoid. For cocaine, in order to get a hit, you gotta call a dealer. For sugar, it's in so many foods that it's seriously hard to go sugar free, even if you never ate sugar before in your life.

I'll start with saying I have pretty mediocre willpower.

I can definitely understand saying you're "addicted" to sugar. I find it really hard to resist going for sugary treats, and it takes a substantial effort to make better snack choices.

But I can put some honey in my yogurt in the morning and not go on a sugary bender, so I feel like it can't be as bad as hard drugs.

The Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast did a segment on this recently, looked at a bunch of different studies and came to the conclusion that the scientific consensus is all over the place on the actual adictiveness of sugar and of processed foods in general, but that there are definitely some affects going on.