Take that, red bull bonces!!!
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2026
395 points (95.8% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
41876 readers
3226 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
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.
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.
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...