21

I know it doesn’t ‘cause’ it, per se, but it’s still a ‘factor’ (or can be, rather) yet it seems some disagree with that description.

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Sugar is bad for almost every part of our body. For example, sugar that makes its way to your skin cells has been linked to early wrinkles in your skin. Sugar in your "eye" cells can lead to worsening eye problems. This is a lifetime scale though so you won't usually see immediate affects. Just look up papers about the effects of consuming sugar on the human body. I once did a deep dive. I am type 2 diabetic myself.

[-] Zarobi@aussie.zone 8 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

consuming sugar can lead to type 2 diabetes

Not misleading, that's factually correct. However, it's that specific type of generalised statement people often take issue with and nitpick to death; especially if they like sugar.

Also loving all the questions you're posting lately, they're interesting and starting proper discussions and disagreements.

[-] Zarobi@aussie.zone 1 points 7 hours ago
[-] ReconciliationTime22128@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Oh, sorry, I didn’t explain clearly. How is it generalised? And what might you think is a more specific example of a statement stating the same thing? (Thanks for the compliment btw I try to inspire engaging conversations)

[-] Zarobi@aussie.zone 6 points 6 hours ago

Oh right. There's nothing wrong with generalised statements at all; in fact they're mandatory for communicating. We can't explain the whole world every time we speak. They work really well in face-to-face conversations or over the phone.

But people in online spaces, especially Lemmy and Reddit, often miss implications, see nuance as weakness, and will jump on it. It's just the nature of the platform. Some people are like this in real life too, but it's easier to just "talk it out" and clarify what you meant if they misunderstood.

Personally, I just accept that people will take issue with my comments and deal with it. But I'll break down which parts of your statement were generalised.

consuming sugar can lead to type 2 diabetes

  • What kind of sugar? The implication is added refined sugar, but people with nutrition backgrounds might take offence. There's many other kinds like whole fresh fruit is considered protective.
  • How often does it need to be consumed? The implication is people eating significant amounts of added sugar per day, I think 50g (1.7oz) is the current upper limit recommended; but people who have 1tsp sugar in their coffee in the morning might take offence. A small amount is usually fine.
  • Is sugar the only cause? The implication is that sugar is just one of many risk factors, but some people might read it as sugar being the only cause. There's many factors that can lead to type 2 'beetus, such as: lack of exercise, obesity, genetics, comorbidities, etc.

So, a tighter, more specific version might look like:

Consuming excessive refined sugar can increase your risk of developing type-2 diabetes.

Can't poke as many holes in that, but it hardly rolls off the tongue. Again nothing wrong with your version at all, just explaining why some people might have taken issue with it.

That’s fair, I guess

[-] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 9 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Yes, because it's ambiguous.

Define sugar.

Define consume.

It's a blanket statement without nuance.

Also everyone consumes sugars in some form - i.e. Carbohydrates.

The simpler the carb, the greater the volume, the more of a concern/risk.

Such ambiguous statements are a major problem with the medical community these days, as all sorts of things get communicated without any quantification.

Things like you're at a greater risk of X because of Y.

OK, how much greater? 60%? Or 0.006%? Is that absolute risk or relative risk?

The blood pressure debate is awash with this problem. As is the realm of biologics (used for autoimmune/autoinflammatory diseases) when looking at increased risk for infections. Yes, there's an increased risk, but across the board of all biologics that increase is something like 1 case in 5000 man-years - with no determination if that's truly because of the biologic or because they study participants already have immune dysregulation

And for specific biologics and specific diseases, there's no demonstrable increase in risk, based on massive meta-analysis.

The devil is in the details.

[-] Kolanaki@pawb.social 6 points 7 hours ago

IMO, it's only misleading in that it doesn't express the quantity needed to really negatively impact your health. A single candy bar ain't gonna lead to diabetes. But eating 50 a day very well could.

[-] slazer2au@lemmy.world 18 points 9 hours ago

No its not misleading because sugar consumption is a known risk factor.

If you said sugar consumption leads to type 1, that would be an outright lie.

[-] TeaWithDani@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

My understanding is excessive sugar consumption reveals type 2 diabetes. The underlying cause tends to be genetic and excessive sugar consumption accelerates the arrival of symptoms.

It's like how you can be allergic to bees your whole life and just never get stung by bees.

Its thus not completely misleading to say excessive consumption of sugar may lead to diabetes, like bee stings can lead to an allergic reaction.

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 15 points 9 hours ago

Is it ‘misleading’ to say that consuming sugar can lead to type 2 diabetes?

I think it’s misleading as stated. At a minimum “excess consumption of sugar can lead to diabetes” would be somewhat more reasonable.

In isolation it implies a more direct connection between the two when the reality is other factors are much higher indicators such as genetics, excess body weight, and physical inactivity.

So in a list of those factors it’s more reasonable than as a standalone statement, but then when excess consumption of anything, along with physical inactivity, is going to lead to excess body weight, it seems a little redundant.

[-] neidu4@piefed.social 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Now I wonder what caused someone to downvote this...

Yes, in any statement "can lead to" does a lot of heavy lifting. There's a big leap between "I added a grain of fructose to my tea last month" to "I added a grain of rice to my HFCS brother this meal too"

[-] Hirohito@fedinsfw.app 5 points 7 hours ago
[-] stsquad@lemmy.ml 10 points 9 hours ago

Not really. Large influxes of sugar put a lot of strain on the bodies ability to regulate blood sugar levels. It's not surprising that when we regularly consume way more than our ancestors would have that things go south.

[-] luthis 4 points 8 hours ago

Its misleading in the same way as saying 'crossing the road can lead to getting hit by a car.'

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I'd prefer "ultra-processed, non-whole foods & beverages that especially contain added sugar beyond naturally-occurring density and absent of regulating soluble fiber increases diabetes risk" but yeah

[-] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 2 points 7 hours ago

Kind of. Just about anything can lead to just about anything else. I mean, there's all-l-l-l sorts of zany causal chains in this wide world. Dropping out of college can lead to becoming one of the richest men in the world, after all. It would be misleading to advise people to drop out of college in order to become rich. There were a lot of additional qualifiers to that story, just as there are lots of additional qualifiers you should mention regarding sugar and diabetes.

[-] bizarroland@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I would say that it is technically misleading, but it's misleading in the way that your telling your kid to do a thing "because I told you so".

There is depth and nuance available in that conversation, but it requires effort to express it and explain it completely.

[-] lntl@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 hours ago

Big ag here, responsible consumption of sugar and corn-based sweeteners may provide health benefits.

[-] humble_boatsman@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 hours ago

Gotta pump those corn subsidies somewhere.

[-] 0ndead@infosec.pub 3 points 9 hours ago
[-] gastroglizzy@piefed.social -1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Is it ‘misleading’ to say that smoking cigarettes can lead to heart disease and cancer?

Is it ‘misleading’ to say that drinking alcohol can lead to liver disease?

Is it ‘misleading’ to say that consuming red meat can lead to high cholesterol?

It all depends on a lot of very nitpicky things like your definitions of "consume", "can", "lead to", and "misleading", but in general, if you apply the same lens to each question, you get the same answer.

I think that possibly is the most ‘balanced’ position I’ve seen so far

this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2026
21 points (92.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

41498 readers
1836 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world


7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.


8) No Bots.
Posts or comments from bots, LLM's, AIs, Neural Networks, Transformers, or Marvin the Paranoid Android are not welcome in AskLemmy. Real humans only please.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS