Take that, red bull bonces!!!
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2026
444 points (95.1% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
41882 readers
3640 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pet peeve.... sugar doesn't give you diabetes.
Chronically high intake of sugar especially from soft drinks can definitely contribute to type 2 diabetes
Just because someone has diabetes doesn't mean they have a bad diet though. But excess calories and weight gain, increased liver fat, and worsening insulin resistance can directly lead to it and shit like red bull can certainly help that along.
"Contribute" and "causes" are not the same thing. I volunteer at a camp for kids with diabetes and one of the many things we need to work on with the kids is telling them they didn't give themselves diabetes. People repeating what you are repeating is part of the problem.
Look, telling kids that they're not responsible for their diabetes versus warning people not to drink too much high sugar soda because it can contribute to type 2 diabetes are two very different and fine things.
Agreed, and if OP said what you said it wouldn't be a pet peeve of mine, but that's not what they said. Sugar doesn't cause diabetes. The fact that anyone still repeats that bullshit causes a lot more trouble for actual diabetics than you realize.
Just because something is a cause of diabetes doesn't mean it's the only one.
It's a fine line to walk, reassuring those that didn't cause their issue (and particularly 'easier' for type 1 diabetes, where lifestyle choices don't factor in), but then you may also encourage people that can avoid type 2 diabetes to think "I'm golden, sugar doesn't cause type 2 diabetes, let me drink a sugar drink 4 or 5 times a day".
The problem here is throwing around medical terms as non-medical people. "Cause" has an exact definition in medical terms: the specific agent, event, genetic mutation, or underlying mechanism that is directly responsible for initiating a disease, condition, or pathological process. By that definition, the medical definition, sugar intake does not cause diabetes. I get that it's a shit post and funny to make jokes about from a non-technical point, FFS I led by saying I understand it's just a pet peeve that the terms are used interchangeably, but the fact so many people are so diehard about insisting that in some definition of cause or factor or "leads to" bullshit sugar can cause diabetes is exactly the source of my frustration.
To be clear: I didn’t say ‘cause’ I said ‘gives’ (blame the slogan lol). In fact, I haven’t to this point used the word ‘cause’ at all in this post, that was someone else. Those are two different things. I understand that it’s possibly not the clearest of distinctions at face value, but I stand by it. My understanding of the link between diabetes and sugar is that though sugar itself doesn’t ’cause’ diabetes, it can ‘trigger’ underlying genetic factors if ingested in too high of a quantity in certain individuals. Or, as another commenter stated, can lead to wait gain, which leads to diabetes, and is therefore an indirect cause. I don’t look at diabetes as a ‘cause’ per se, but rather like a key that unlocks the diabetes door. However, in that sense it still ‘gives’ you it in a way, even if not as a direct cause. It’s like when people say “kids give themselves tooth decay” kids don’t directly rot their own teeth, but they indirectly cause it by putting acids and things on their teeth, not brushing etc. and they still say that they gave themselves it. I agree it’s weird semantics, but it’s what we have to work with.
While perhaps technically correct, this is misleading because it implies a relationship like smoking and cancer.
If you don't already have T2D then sugar intake won't give you T2D. It might make you overweight which might give you T2D but that's not really the sugar.
Conversely, plenty of people eating a healthy balanced diet who are not overweight develop T2D.
You don't know that. The endocrine system is complicated, and Type 2 Diabetes usually shows up after a period of increasing insulin resistance, and then prediabetes.
Insulin resistance can come after your blood insulin levels remain chronically elevated, such as when you keep feeding yourself things that raise blood sugar.
It may or may not be direct, but weight management on a low sugar diet is far more plausible than high sugar diet.
Plus theories about constant bombardment of sugars and what it means for insulin resistance.
Short of it is that if you go nuts with the sugar, T2D is a quite plausible outcome. If you keep sugar low, your weight will probably also be reasonable and your insulin response is probably fine.
Yes, there are the unlucky souls that get it even if they seemingly do everything right, but the vast majority of folks I know including a lot of family got T2D after years of unmanaged obesity. In three cases I know personally where they got their weight under control and exercised, they had perfectly normal A1C and fasting blood sugar levels even if they were given a full blown T2D diagnosis.
You're correct that diet and exercise is the best front line treatment for T2D, however it's not a cure for T2D.
As in, the underlying condition still exists but the symptoms, high blood sugar, are being managed.
Again, this is not evidence that sugar causes T2D.
This is such a bad take. Sugar doesn't directly give diabetes to you. Your pancreas will try it's best, but if it's genetics or just insanely high sugar levels, it doesn't matter. The minute your body can't keep up with insulin production, the high levels of blood sugar absolutely wreck you.
So we agree, sugar doesn't cause diabetes? Nothing you said contradicts that, and you describing the result of high blood sugar doesn't speak to what causes it. I've only been diabetic for 13 years, 4 as a diabetic educator at a camp for kids with diabetes, what would I know?
So why does treatment that consists of reducing or controlling glucose also control for symptoms and progression of diabetes?
Type 1 or type 2 or gestational? I'll answer all 3. Many types 1's eat a reduced carb diet as a means to simplify dosing. Every gram of carbs must be manually accounted for and dosed for. Less carbs means less glucose spikes means less math and less dosing. To be medically accurate this is not considered "treatment" since it isn't treating the disease, for a type 1 treatment consists of insulin, glucose monitoring, carb counting, and you can argue glucagon in that list as a treatment for insulin overdose.
Type 2, you could describe aspects of TREATMENT of type 2 with what you said, with caveats. Type 2 is often but not always associated with diet, exercise, and genetic predisposition. With that context less sugar means less weight gain means less likelihood of getting type 2 if one is prediabetic. The other side of that is lowering carb intake helps with weight loss which can cure type 2 (not always) and it helps with what I described for type 1's: less carbs means less sugar spikes means less insulin. None of that has anything to do with the simple statement that eating sugar does not cause diabetes.
Gestational, similar but different type 2, with the understanding that the genetic component means you can still get it even with proper weight, diet, and exercise management.
No, for the first, we call that lifestyle modification, it's absolutely a form of non-pharmaceutical treatment, like physical therapy. Diet and exercise are essential. I am arguing that if control of sugar and carbs helps response, it can also be assumed that uncontrolled sugar will create more problems. Sugar is a culprit.
I'll restate my previous with type 1 in mind: sugar isn't the sole cause of diabetes, but it absolutely contributes to developement of type 2, which the original poster was eluding to and seems to be going way over your head.
Educating people, especially children, that sugar doesn't cause diabetes is a misleading over-simplification of the disease. It's wreckless and contributes to a lower quality of life over time. I'd absolutely ask you or your manager to reevaluate your current understanding.
By this logic I should stop drinking water because if I drink too much I'll drown. And that's a life style modification thus water causes death.
No...Drinking water doesn't cause drowning. Inhaling it does. How much water have you inhaled in your lifetime? Regardless, even drinking too much water can cause seizures.
The logic is this: there's an unhealthy amount of anything for everyone.
Everyone needs to lower sugar intake to reduce the chance of developing diabetes type 2. And absolutely control it if born with type 1, gestational, the whole spectrum of diabetes. Sugar isn't the only thing that leads to it, either, but the risk is absolutely equated with sugary foods.
Lowering of carbohydrates reduces stress on the pancreas. Heck, your body can create sugar as it needs. We don't need carbs and will be healthier with less in our diets.
Well thank you for your factually incorrect assessment of the situation. I will take it under advisement and have decided not to tell a camp of type 1 diabetic kids that sugar causes diabetes, because then I would be as wrong as you are.
This. Right here. This is how sugar leads to diabetes (it still gives you it in a sense)
Leads to is still medically inaccurate. Too much sugar cannot lead to diabetes. Too much sugar CAN lead to weight gain, and weight gain CAN lead to diabetes, but sugar intake cannot LEAD to diabetes.
I think if A can lead to B and B can lead to C, then A can lead to C.
That's not how medical terminology works. This is why if you aren't educated on a technical topic and it's terminology and usage. You shouldn't argue with those that are.
"can lead to" isn't medical terminology; it's just ordinary English, and you haven't done anything to convince me that "can lead to" has a specific meaning in medicine and what that meaning is. See further down this subthread for a quote from professionals that backs me up.
Not according to doctors.
I don't know why doctors would have any authority on my statement which does not mention medicine. My statement is about logic and language, not about medicine.
I suspect you're also wrong in the particular case. Let's see what the first article I pulled out says:
The fact that it talks about drinks directly rather than sugar is, if anything, more relevant to our discussion! Now, there are many caveats in the paper, obviously, but we are talking about a narrow statement that consumption of sugar (or drinks containing it) "can lead to diabetes" and you denied it.
I think you're hung up on the direct causal links to the point where you're objecting to perfectly ordinary turns of phrase. "Can lead to" does not mean the same as "directly causes." Do you have a way, in your preferred language, of referring to the path from too much sugar to diabetes, without explicitly mentioning weight gain?
I haven't denied weight as a factor or too much sugar as a factor, if that's the term you're looking for, but even in the article you reference the same issue comes up of moving the goalposts. Eating sugar does not cause diabetes, nor is just eating sugar a factor. Eating large quantities of sugar is a factor. See the difference?
So what I would say to you is that when you say "eating large quantities of sugar is a factor [in developing diabetes]" other people, including me, say "too much sugar can lead to developing diabetes" and mean exactly the same thing.
If you want to be precise, you can qualify phrases like "can lead to" and "cause" and so on with "directly or indirectly" - but to me, without that qualification, they can mean either.
Cheers!
So, not to beat a dead horse, but what we're saying is that eating sugar doesn't cause diabetes?
I wouldn't say that, because I think there is too much room for misinterpretation. But that's not the thing I replied about and not what I really take issue with. That was, to remind you:
I think that is wrong and likely to be understood as meaning "too much sugar cannot lead to diabetes even indirectly" by most people.
Well I think you're moving the goalposts and we're gonna have to agree to disagree.
Not directly, but indirectly as you have pointed out. To me, whether directly or indirectly, it still leads to it one way or another. Or can lead to, rather.
Do all people who eat sugar get fat? Do all people who get fat get diabetes? I fully admit it's a pet peeve of people not using the correct terms but it leads to real issues of not understanding what causes diabetes. If you have your pancreas removed that CAUSES type 1 diabetes, because it is impossible for you to not get type 1 diabetes once the pancreas is gone. You see that is not the same relationship, right?
Well that’s why I said ‘can’ lead to. I’m not saying literally everyone in that situation ends up the same, what I’m saying is it’s an indirect cause for some people. Of course there’s always other causes, whether direct or indirect.
Obviously not everyone who has a reasonable amount of sugar gets fat or diabetes.
However, NO ONE has actually claimed that straw man. This culture of 'only drink things that have at least a hundred calories of refined sugar added' is a huge problem for weight gain and diabetes.
In your analogy, yo usay removing the pancreas causes type 1 diabetes. This is absolutely a cause. Yet on the other hand you seem to be arguing that since there are other causes besides high sugar diets that can also cause type 2 diabetes, you shouldn't say high sugar diets cause diabetes.
High sugar diets are a huge risk. Some people manage to get away with such a diet without diabetes (but likely get other issues with weight gain), and some people have the misfortune to get it anyway, but the fact remains a high sugar diet can result in diabetes, though arguments can be had about how direct/indirect the relationship is.
Did... did you look at the original shit post image we're talking about? Please don't tell me no one is saying sugar causes diabetes, because dude...
I give you diabetes.
Does that cancel out my existing diabetes or give me some kind of Super Diabetes?
True but it can still trigger diabetes