Take that, red bull bonces!!!
You must log in or register to comment.
- 5 days
Because it’s disgusting. The aftertaste and the way it coats my mouth is just nasty.
- 5 days
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.
You can rip the sucralose from my cold dead hands. Keep your disgusting corn sugar.
- 5 days
The slogan, “RedBull gives you Wings” needs an asterisk. It only applies to those who are grated into heaven after they die of diabeetus
- 5 days
“Nah im not tired or insomniac i just love consuming 3 cans of bull piss every single day it tastes just good” actually according to their website it’s 27g of sugars. What I found even funnier (or worse) though is this
Makes it look like RB has less sugar than juice, but we’re comparing 100ml of the bull to 250ml of juice. FFS
Possibly two different people rounded it differently.
I just got the stats off this page on their website
Yeah it’s not good when big companies like that make such misleading comparisons
- 4 days
They’re comparing serving sizes. There are 100ml cans of red bull. But if I asked you for a cup of apple juice, and you put just a 100ml cup in front of me, I’d ask you where the fuck the rest of it is.
There are 100ml cans of redbull? 100ml is usually the volume listed alongside the servingsize or can size to allow people to more easily compare products. When you compare composition of one thing to another, it is always fairer to compare equal volumes, or use percentages.
- 1 day
Forgive me, I was in error regarding the can size. I assumed the tiny cans were 100ml, but they’re actually 8.4oz , which is around 250ml.
The reason red bull uses the 100ml number is because it’s a rate that can be applied to the different sized cans.
Also, the reason you want to use serving size instead of equal volume is because you consume different things at different volumes. Consider alcoholic drinks. A pint of beer, a glass of wine, and a shot of liquor are all significantly different volumes. But the serving sizes all have similar amounts of total alcohol. No one should be drinking a pint of straight vodka.
What about Turaine and Caffeine ? Also compare it to natural fruit juice without sugar and added preservatives…etc
- 4 days
Those numbers are about right for the sugar in freshly pressed apple juice tbh. That is why you can get quite a bit of alcohol when you make scrumpy.
Well let’s have a look at the quantities of caffeine and Turaine of red bull and compare, shall we? Here, have a look at this: https://www.redbull.com/us-en/energydrink/products/red-bull-energy-drink-ingredients-list
- 5 days
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.
- obamaspajamas@fedinsfw.appEnglish1 day
t1 diabetic here. I get the grind of trying to find low/no/alt sugar products. You always hear about how bad the usa diet is. But it’s another thing to travel around world for alt food cultures, and/or even look directly at the numbers. Basically everything has some form of sweetener in it. I don’t get it.
- 6 days
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?
- 5 days
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.
- 5 days
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.
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.
- FishFace@piefed.socialEnglish6 days
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.
- FishFace@piefed.socialEnglish5 days
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?
- 5 days
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…
