Take that, red bull bonces!!!
Could be worse I guess, coca cola has about 50g or so in a can
On another note, I hate how all drinks add more sugar than needed. I usually use only 10g to sweeten my milk tea, but every canned drink is 30 to 50g
I presume you’re not a fan of sugar cubes then in favour of a spoon?
Pet peeve… sugar doesn’t give you diabetes.
I give you diabetes.
Does that cancel out my existing diabetes or give me some kind of Super 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.
Chronically high intake of sugar especially from soft drinks can definitely contribute to type 2 diabetes
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.
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.
If you don’t already have T2D then sugar intake won’t give you 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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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…
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.
Too much sugar cannot lead to diabetes. Too much sugar CAN lead to weight gain, and weight gain CAN 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:
SSB [sugar sweetened beverage] consumption can lead to weight gain, inflammation, and T2DM [type 2 diabetes].
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?
I mean, diabetes also gives you wings?
You can just drink the sugar free one and get alzheimers from the aspartame instead.
If you want to make a claim against aspartame, go for the cancer claim. It’s proven and accepted by the WHO, and many people consume beyond the threshold accepted to cause cancer (something like a few cans of soft drink per day IIRC)
What? Aspartame is classified as a possible carcinogen, but mostly to encourage further research. There’s an old rat study that claimed to show an increase in variois cancers, but it had a weirdly cancer-free control group and used levels far in excess of “a few cans per day”. AFAIK, no human studies have ever shown any significant correlation. It definitely hasn’t been “proven and accepted by the WHO”.
https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
Possibly carcinogenic with an ADI of zero to 40 mg/kg per day with three high quality (although limited, because there are not yet enough studies to definitively prove beyond chance) evidence for liver cancer in humans
For example, with a can of diet soft drink containing 200 or 300 mg of aspartame, an adult weighing 70kg would need to consume more than 9–14 cans per day to exceed the acceptable daily intake, assuming no other intake from other food sources.
9-14 cans of soda per day seems pretty hard to hit, even intentionally.
Sory, I wasn’t aware comments in a shitpost community were graded for factual accuracy. I will be sure to be better in the future to appease our teminally online overlords 🙏
correlation
always equals causation
Yes
This is why pirates can cure global warming
There are few drinks that I can’t stand the smell of but Redbull just smells fucking disgusting.
As someone who grew up avoiding sugar and having to look at the back of everything this would have been relatively low in sugar compared to other products sold in that same store in my area. In the South of the US you would have a hard time finding something lower than sprite and or tea(~35g)without alternative synthetic sweeteners like aspertain and sucralose or just water and those options used to be sparce. A lot of times a convenience store would only have diet coke, unsweet tea, or water unless I was okay with 30+ grams of sugar. I’m not saying that it’s okay to have that much sugar, but it definitely seems far out of the way from some of the much lower hanging fruit. For example even Gatorade and Powerade have more sugar per package unit and those were available via vending machines IN the school. Also, pretty much every fast-food drink station makes you choose between water, unsweetened tea, or something with almost 50g of sugar when in a can.
50g??? Damn, that is bad
That was kinda the ceiling seemed like everyone was trying to avoid. So a lot of 48 and 49. But all might as well have been surge to me. …Surge had 56g a can if I recall.
Nah it’s just the total amount of the calories that is from suger. It only … hmm… only has 26g of sugars in it.
Just looked at the Mexican coke I just finished drinking 😭 39g sugar…
Mexican coke
Identical to any other coke.
When you visualize it like this, it makes you think twice about grabbing that sugary beverage. Having said that, I still like a red bull here and there, and sugar free just ain’t the same.
Um… excuse me, but isn’t Mountain Dew that pop drink in america? Why tf is Frappuccino labeled as Mountain Dew?
I didn’t notice that. Probably slop. Here’s a better image
Here’s one of the total amount of sugar in a Monster Zero Sugar.
They use a DNA damage agent instead. Better?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/09/260912220107.htm
And we wonder why colon cancer is exploding under 30.
Interesting read. Thank you. But the article didn’t really conclude anything specific about the genotoxicity of the sweetener outside direct cell exposure to a related chemical.
You can bet your colon that obesity will kill you before the cancer. Unless the cancer caused by obesity kills your first.
Hmm, according to this graphic 7 == 9 == 10 > 14. I see LLMs still can’t do math
Yeah, I fucking hate the post AI Internet. I used to be able to find the relevant image when I searched it up, not AI garbage.
That’s not even the worst thing: his first image that he posted had a Frappuccino labelled as ‘mountain dew’ not a joke
Makes me wonder which ones taste good if you turn the sugar into ethanol. Apple juice does, what about others?
Worry not, some Internet guy did it with mountain dew.
*Beetus Juice
The fastest way to give lab rats diabetes is to feed them vegetable oil.
“Nah im not tired or insomniac i just love consuming 3 cans of bull piss every single day it tastes just good”That is a lot of sugar, but to be fair, go to your local convenience store (if you’re in the US) and look at the back of just about any drink for sale aside from bottled water and you’ll be hard pressed to find drinks that aren’t just as bad.
To be fair, if you look at sugar contents, even the “healthy” fruit juices are filled with them. In fact, many argue that a fruit juice is not as healthy as they tell us because while you get some of the good nutrients of fruit in them (when they are 100% and not from concentrate), you also get a huge intake of sugar that goes quickly into your blood. When you eat fruit, you take the same amount of sugar but you need to digest the fruit first, making it slower to absorb. It’s a good practice to drink a fruit juice accompanied by something to eat so you don’t get the sugar rush.
Like so many things in life, I think it’s safest to file under “everything in moderation.”
Soda isn’t meant for human consumption, but the marketing is strong
To be clear, that means they are all terrible for you. I think that’s pretty much universally true of anything you can buy in a gas station.
Hey hey now, leave my bath salts alone.
You don’t need to be in a gas station to buy garbage. Most of the middle of the grocery store is garbage.
FYI a most sodas are 50-80 grams of sugar.
You probably shouldn’t look at the sugar in the sweet tea from McDonald’s then…
The slogan, “RedBull gives you Wings” needs an asterisk. It only applies to those who are grated into heaven after they die of diabeetus
This comment made my shit night
It actually gives you wiiings. Which apparently they do to avoid false advertisement or some shit?
Wait why are you not drinking red bull zero
Because it’s disgusting. The aftertaste and the way it coats my mouth is just nasty.
Fair. I actually prefer zero to sugar red bull. Every body is different!
That’s how I feel about the regular one. Locarb RB/Monster are my go tos
Every person’s mouth is different, I can’t drink anything with artificial sweeteners without feeling kinda gross afterwards. I stick to cane sugar sodas as much as I can. Kinda easy since I work at a soda factory that exclusively uses cane sugar. Ill mix our in-house energy with orange cream soda and oh my that shits good.
Oh yeah I wasn’t saying you’re wrong. Just sharing since I thinkits funny I feel the same as you do but about the opposite end of the sugar scale for red bull. Full sugar monster is fine for me. I don’t drink the full zero energies because they often mess with my stomach. I wish more stuff used cane sugar, I almost always prefer that version of a drink!
Oh yea definitely, I didn’t take it that way. Sorry if it sounded as such. It’s crazy how the artificial sweeteners vibe differently with people. Shoot even water is like that, some areas the water makes my stomach hurt lol 😂
All zero drinks are disgusting and I have no idea why people drink that shit. If you don’t want to get fat, don’t drink soda. Very simple.
I would prefer to drink something without any sweetness at all than drink something with of this sweetener substitute. Damn, give me a salty drink before an artificial sweetener one.
My philosophy is that I don’t want to become accustomed to super-sweet everything. Because then I will crave sugar. So artificial sweeteners avoid the sugar now but they make me accustomed to wanting more sweetness in everything, which will lead to more sugar consumption later.
What do I drink? Espresso with 8oz milk (no sugar), or water, or unsweetened iced tea with maybe a splash of sweet tea on top to take away the dryness feeling. At least 5:1 ratio unsweet to sweet.
I have the same lifestyle with almost no candy or soda. Sometimes cinnamon buns though. I feel that on the rare occasions I really want to eat something sweet, I will go for a proper authentic one that taste great.
You can rip the sucralose from my cold dead hands. Keep your disgusting corn sugar.
You can rip the sucralose from my cold dead hands.
The article you linked specifically discusses how the findings of the study don’t translate to living organisms and that there is no evidence that levels found in food are harmful.
Look I’m of the opinion that we’re all gonna die and if I’m drinking energy drinks regularly, it’s not cause I am aiming to live a healthy life.
But don’t all those zero calorie, alternate sweeteners also apparently cause heart problems and other stuff as well?
Sugar causes far more harm than sweeteners.
Some people don’t mind or like how it tastes.
No reason to get upset about what other people enjoy.Pop and juice are easy ways to consume huge quantities of calories faster than you expect, but saying you need to eschew flavor if you want to not get fat is silly.
