Like, yea, you can technically get addicted to anything. But there’s a massive difference between getting addicted to, say, working out, and getting addicted to nicotine.

So food being chemically addictive is not something that’s been known for decades, in fact it’s been a common topic of debate.

[–] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago

okay 'chemically' vs psychologically is the distinction I was looking for, thanks.

Although if we give science enough time maybe they will arrive at the conclusion that its the same mechanism, 'psychologically' addictive just means a dopamine addiction as far as I know. Its still a chemical.

[–] legion02@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Isn't type 2 diabetes functional evidence of a sugar addiction?

[–] CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

I see what you mean, but it’s still functionally different. Being chemically addicted to nicotine or alcohol isn’t the same process as a diabetic needing sugar.