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.
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.