No, not permanently. Nor does smoking or alcohol abuse- altho in those cases the damage takes longer to recover from. The sensors recover and grow back. In the case of capsaicin the dulling of taste is quite temporary, maybe even just overnight. But I wouldnt chow down on hot peppers right before a gourmet meal.
Not according to your own cite: it just means you don’t experience “the spice”, i.e., the capsaicin burn, as strongly for a few days. Your cite doesn’t mention ruining your ability to taste lavender, lamb, chanterelles, or chantilly cream. Just chiles.
Edit: here’s a better cite:
The expert cited here addresses the question directly. Because the burn of capsaicin isn’t sensed by taste buds but other nerves, taste buds aren’t really implicated, and are not even temporarily harmed. The money quote:
There is no evidence that ‘taste buds’ are ruined.
Comparing a natural chili pepper to the chemical damage of tobacco or alcohol is a massive reach.
I believe that hot peppers can be part of a gourmet meal. Gourmet isn’t limited to European meals.
I agree with you that AFAICT there’s no physiological reason to claim that capsaicin somehow physically destroys receptors in our mouths. Of course people who like very spicy foods can still taste and enjoy non-spicy foods as well.
I will say, however, that IME many people who are really accustomed to a certain level of chili heat in certain foods find less-hot versions of those foods much less palatable. Like, if they’re used to five-alarm heat levels for their lamb vindaloo or whatever, then a version of that dish with less chili kick, even if it’s very well prepared and seasoned and is deliciously flavorful, will come across as “bland” to them. In that sense, being acclimated to the hotter version has indeed in some sense “ruined” them for the milder version.
Is that materially different from someone who’s used to dark chocolate and is “ruined” for semisweet chocolate, or someone who’s used to curry with a cup of ghee who’s “ruined” for low-fat curry, or someone who’s used to high salt dishes and thinks a dish is ruined if there’s not much salt in it? Chiles, like salt and fat and black pepper, can act as a flavor enhancer.
No, I don’t think it is, and I don’t think I said it was?
I said as much. I said, and my cites said, there is a temporally loss of taste.
Nor did I claim as much.
and as my other cite said
Oral capsaicin partially masks gustatory and olfactory sensations…In spite of this difference, the partial masking of the magnitude of olfactory or gustatory sensations exerted by capsaicin is approximately equal in the two groups. There are indications that decrements in flavor identification under capsaicin are greater in chili dislikers (non-eaters). The pattern of results suggests that the masking effect of capsaicin on taste and smell arises at the stage of processing before (or on a parallel path to) the appreciation of the magnitude of the capsaicin-induced burn sensation.
So, no- taste buds are not killed or ‘ruined’ by capsaicin. Taste is temporarily dulled.
Maybe, but I think that is mostly that a regular five alarm eater wont get the endorphin kick from milder foods.
I switched to dark chocolate for decades, but now I prefer good quality milk chocolate. Mind you some tasty dark is always a good choice.
I mean, I like hot food. I like it much hotter than most folks do (though not as much as @silenus ). If I get a dish that isn’t as hot, I won’t like it as much, because, well, I like it hotter. What’s odd about that?
By hot you mean capsaicin heat? Nothing “wrong” or “odd” with that at all. Maybe dessert wont taste as nice after that dish of hatch hot chili , but many wont even notice it. If you enjoy hot curries or spicy hot food, then go for it. Many people enjoy the “burn” and the endorphin rush. Many dont. I mean it is like pineapple on pizza or ketchup on hot dogs or real Caesar salad with anchovies (that last I like, but many dont). De gustibus non est disputandum
However, when sharing food, some things have to be remembered. Unless you know your crowd really well, getting the party only Hawaiian or anchovy pizza might not be a good choice. Same with five alarm chili.
I’m just glad we got to the bottom of the “spicy food ruins taste” canard, and that was simply a misspeak.
Spicy is not in opposition to quality or gourmet. Chiles can certainly be a part of a gourmet meal
Also long pepper, Grains of Paradise, various other Guinea peppers, cubebs and galingale.
Ketchup wasn’t originally made from tomatoes even in the West.
Sure–I just wanted to clarify that this is a property of food, not a property of chiles specifically.
Factually true, and completely irrelevant. “Deer” didn’t originally mean strictly cervids, and “vegetable” didn’t originally mean strictly edible *plants, but that’s where we are in 2026.
*I guess most people would also consider mushrooms and other edible fungi as vegetables.
I think that’s more a matter of becoming accustomed to intensity than anything specific to do with one’s taste buds.
I mean, I like strongly brewed coffee, and tend to find weaker coffee insipid. But it doesn’t taste bad. Or another example might be that in bourbon, I like full flavored, high rye bourbons. Think Old Grand Dad 114 for example. Something like a milder wheated bourbon is kind of like the coffee- not bad, just lacking something.
I imagine it’s the same for people who eat a high level of chilies in their food or who typically eat high-cacao chocolate.
Not irrelevant to the importation and naming at the time.
2026 is irrelevant to the importation. The condiment wasn’t imported 3 months ago.
Huh? Tobacco is totally natural natural. So is alcohol. Lots of fruits ferment on their own, and I’ve read lots of accounts of, for example, a flock of drunk birds eating fermented mulberries.
And plants produce both nicotine and capsaicin to protect themselves from being eaten. Nicotine kills (or disables) insect pests, and capsaicin discourages mammals from eating fruits whose seeds are better spread by birds, i believe.
Is capsaicin less damaging to your health than nicotine or alcohol? Yes. But not because it’s more “natural”.
It’s irrelevant to the discussion (which is taking place here and now). But thanks for playing. 
The discussion at that point was touching on the origin, which was not here or now. Now was irrelevant to the point made. But thanks for the thanks, anyway.
I’ve forgotten what the OP was about.