Thanks for your comments and thoughts.

To get the formalities out of the way first: your first reference and your third reference are the same study (one linked via NCBI and the other a direct link to the PLOS ONE Journal).

Your 2nd reference is a healthline post, which does not qualify as a valid science reference, which I’m therefore not going to discuss here.

Principally, in my article, I did not argue for or against the comparative addictiveness of sugar vs. drugs of abuse such as cocaine or heroin. As I highlighted, this discussion is moot, in my eyes, because it does not offer any practical solution. But just for arguments’ sake, here is my take on the experiment you referenced:

The experiment you present as reference was done with rats.

While some studies show that rats prefer sugar over cocaine, it is an acknowledged fact that translating these findings to human “sugar addiction” needs caution. First, human behavior and the environment with which humans engage are far more complex than rats and their caged environment. Once cocaine-addicted rats are exposed to an “enriched environment” they extinguish their addiction within a relatively short time. (https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2009127)

Second, rats are highly resistant to cocaine addiction, possibly more so than humans (btw. most people who experiment with cocaine or heroin do not become addicts).

Third, how would rats “behave” if they were exposed to and aware of the negative consequences of their cocaine addiction as humans are? Would they still compulsively continue with their cocaine habit despite “knowing” that they harm themselves? We can’t replicate this condition in an animal experiment unless we pair the cocaine exposure with a coincident punishment (like an electroshock). The experiment you cited didn’t use this method. In addition, it needs to be proved that rats lose control over cocaine self-administration, and that they take cocaine in response to an uncontrollable impulse and not because of other nonpathological causes. That proof doesn’t come out of the study, neither does it come from most other experiments I am aware of.

But as I said the discussion is moot for the reasons given in my article.

The protein leverage hypothesis is an attractive model to explain certain feeding preferences in humans. I can attest to a certain daily need for animal protein in my diet to feel satiated. But I doubt that sufficient protein is a cure-all for a sweet tooth, particularly not if that sweet tooth turns out to be an addiction. And that is rather difficult to “achieve”. You’ll notice that when you take the YFAS test. To qualify for a food addiction takes a lot of severe behavioral aberrations.

Lastly, while it is definitely a good idea to limit sugars, your statement that “sugar is so toxic, especially to the endothelium lining our blood vessels” is a bit of an oversimplification.

On its own sugar doesn’t damage the enothelium right away, it requires longer term use AND the co-occurrence of other conditions, particularly chronic low-grade inflammation.