Take that, red bull bonces!!!
This is still less sugar than the chocolate milk cartons they serve in American schools.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I hate both lol
Sounds like something off a spurlock doc. If true, What a sorry state of affairs.
Looks like my bowl of sugar cubes for breakfast is back on the table.
What… the hell… has happened… to my comments section???
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?
I dont use sugar cubes, i buy taiwan brown sugar and that comes in a loose bag, so I just threw an unused measuring spoon in my container of it
This is why I only drink the six foot tall monster screw top cans. I’m so much healthier than those red bull peons.
It’s the same as any soda. Around 10% of the drink like coca cola or Pepsi.
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 😂
I thought that the sugar industry worked really hard to ensure they didn’t have to show a daily % amount on the right across from the grams listing. I have never seen a % there before. Crazy.
Maybe it’s just my state, but I’ve seen the percent there on pretty much everything I can think of.
Reminder, the percent isnt the percent of the can, it’s the percent of the “recommend daily value” (which is what the %DV at the top means) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_Daily_Intake
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.
Edit removed slop, changed pic
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.
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.
You can bet your colon that obesity will kill you before the cancer. Unless the cancer caused by obesity kills your first.
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.
Fair enough, although it would be better with numerical measurements
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
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 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.
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.
Hey hey now, leave my bath salts alone.
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
Omfg, this whole comment section is actually infuriating. Y’all motherfuckers need
jesusLiamAspartame is fine, sugar won’t hurt you. Just drink in moderation, and you’re golden.
Stop spreading FUD.
Yeah. It’s not over 100%. Just drink one and it’s fine.
If you can’t control yourself drink the diet version or switch to something else.
I added flavored (aspartame) carbonated waters to balance out my soda addiction. One can a day, a couple sips of the carbonated drinks, and a ton of water. Took a few years, but much healthier
It’s 2026, facts are just a simple search away for when you hopefully give up on bro science from influencers
https://news.ki.se/how-aspartame-affects-blood-vessels-in-mice
https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
Did… did you read them, “bro”? Because they’re making my point, not yours.
The mice were fed an exclusive high fat high carb diet containing double the amount of aspartame that you’d find in a zero sugar drink. They’re mice. Scaling that amount up to match mg/kg in a human would be an ASTRONOMICAL amount of aspartame consumed at every meal, for 12 weeks. Even then, the effects in mice were not even exclusive to the aspartame group. ETA: did the math: It’s 5.2 MILLION cans of coke zero. Every meal. For 12 weeks.
The second one rated it as 2B, or the weakest link, and it says right there: “JECFA reaffirmed the acceptable daily intake of 40 mg/kg body weight.” ETA: Just to put that 2B rating into perspective, shift work, as in working unusual hours, is rated as 2A, which is higher. Magnetic fields have a rating of 2B.
Your last study is interesting but far from conclusive. It found a correlation, which is not causation. Even the author suspects “chronic high intake” of being the culprit.
Stop spreading FUD. Drink in moderation, and you’re golden.
While I fully agree with your comments on aspartame and have read these posted articles, I would have to disagree with you on the regular sugar part. The more we are researching sugar and its connection with heart health, the lower the recommended daily intake becomes. One of the reasons it is in fact still so HIGH of a recommendation is due to the sugary drink lobby going against the American heart association (as well as almost every physician organization) for the FDA recommendations.
But yes, in moderation you are fine. Just not as freely with the moderation as they make you think you have. This redbull is claiming 26g of sugar is only 53% of you limit, when the AHA limit is only 36g for men (and 25g for women!). So, bad in moderation.
Amazing how I’ve single handedly set this entire community on fire with this lol. I shall have to learn from this experience and do it all again.
you’re probably going to get enraged comments but I’m not one of those. liam is the best
“Nah im not tired or insomniac i just love consuming 3 cans of bull piss every single day it tastes just good”The more infuriating part are sugar free energy drinks. Per definition they don’t have any energy in them.
A can of petrol is a sugar free energy drink.
But it’s super high in carbs.
There are few drinks that I can’t stand the smell of but Redbull just smells fucking disgusting.
The slogan, “RedBull gives you Wings” needs an asterisk. It only applies to those who are grated into heaven after they die of diabeetus
It actually gives you wiiings. Which apparently they do to avoid false advertisement or some shit?
This comment made my shit night
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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:
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?
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.
I give you diabetes.
Does that cancel out my existing diabetes or give me some kind of Super Diabetes?
deleted by creator
