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 you don’t intend to correct those that you know will misunderstand you, yes.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Its misleading in the same way as saying ‘crossing the road can lead to getting hit by a car.’
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.
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.
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
Yes
