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.
If it doesn’t, then what does?
Diet high in saturated fats leads to insulin resistance by clogging the insulin receptors AFAIK
Here’s a good video by nutritionfacts.org on the mechanism.
People are arguing all sorts of other causes like obesity, genetics, etc.
Would it happen without a trigger?
I would argue no, but it seems others know differently
Had to research this one a bit. There is no proof someone can be immune to type 2 diabetes.
Your statement seems to stand because of this. I was originally thinking you would need a qualifier like some or most people, but no research supports that.
Thanks for researching. Any specific citations?
Well I was just researching evidence of genetic immunity on the premise that your statement wouldn’t be accurate if it included everyone. I certainly did not do an exhaustive study so I may have missed something.
Across the articles it appears there may be no smoking gun in regards to genetics one way or the other with obesity and age being the biggest risk factors.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3746083/
https://hms.harvard.edu/news/protective-mutations-type-2-diabetes
Fair enough, thanks for that
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
Can you elaborate?
Which part?
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)
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.
It also doesn’t help that there are many health influencers out there who do make outrageous claims, so it’s not always clear that the “sugar causes diabetes” isn’t being followed by “that’s why I don’t let my kids eat carrots, because they might as well be eating candy”.
I should buy more carrots. They tasty. Good with any dip like hommus
That’s fair, I guess
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.
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
Its misleading in the same way as saying ‘crossing the road can lead to getting hit by a car.’
Big ag here, responsible consumption of sugar and corn-based sweeteners may provide health benefits.
Gotta pump those corn subsidies somewhere.
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
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.
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.
Yes
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.
