Take that, red bull bonces!!!
There are few drinks that I can’t stand the smell of but Redbull just smells fucking disgusting.
As the old southern ladies say: I got dem sugars from the Red Bull.
*Beetus Juice
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.
Just looked at the Mexican coke I just finished drinking 😭 39g sugar…
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.
I mean, diabetes also gives you wings?
It’s meant to be something you drink before an intensive activity. having some sugar in it is a good addition, not a bad one. 110 calories per can is nothing, you can burn them by walking a few km.
But there’s always some derivative that comes with 0 calories.
So since the majority of consumers that drink red bull are sedentary, you’re saying Red Bull would be fine with losing 90% of their market share because their product was intended to be used before intense activity?
Or are they perhaps marketing to exactly that segment because they are as callous as people say?
Ughhhhhhhh the “aCtuAlLy” crowd. Give it a rest. You know this is illogical at best. Just because you’ve retained the commercial talking points doesn’t mean you understand the underlying situation.
“Some sugar”
This piss is 26% sugar my guy. And WHO recommends not to ingest more than 25g of added sugar per day.
I’m sorry, but your comment is so stupid it hurts my feelings.
Edit: I realised it’s not 26%, because it only gives the amount per serving instead of 100 milliliters, so it’s harder to understand how much sugar is actually in there. It’s still piss with way too much sugar though.
26 grams, not %, but yeah I agree nobody would rightly say to ingest that much sugar in one go in any case.
Yeah, but how many kids do you see nowadays on the way to school with a can in their hand? It may be intended for that, and yeah a lot of people do use it for that (exercise), but there’s also a lot of people who don’t use it for that.
None, They can’t buy them due to their age.
Where do you live that Red Bull is age restricted? I’m curious, because anyone can buy it here.
Oh they find ways…
That’s 100% their shitty decision. But even if you don’t buy a red bull for exercise, it’s still only 110 calories. The can says 53% sugar, which is about the same as the amount of carbs in bread. You can easily eat more calories with bread.
Oh I 100% agree it’s their poor decision. The only thing I would say is just because the % of sugar is the same, it doesn’t necessarily mean the same quantity. For example, this white bread company claims only 3 grams of sugar in a loaf of bread (obviously it won’t be the same in every loaf, though I’ve never heard of a loaf of bread containing 36 grams of sugar - though I could be wrong).
The percentage isn’t a percent of the can, it’s a percent of your “Daily Value” which is how much an average person is supposed to have in a day. 100% means it contains the amount you are supposed to have in a day. Not that the can is 100% sugar. So a soda that has 50% DV has the same amount of sugar as bread that has a serving marked as 50% DV.
That’s interesting, I hadn’t known that. But given the maximum daily intake of sugar is around 40 g, I guess that would make sense mathematically. May I ask, is that percentage purely in terms of mass, or is it also in terms of calories?
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.
39 grams of sugar in a 12 oz can of Coke.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
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
Drink the zero sugar version. Problem solved.
I personally like the sugar free version better. Especially the summer sudachi lime flavor
Tastes disgusting tho, sugar free versions of most energy drink flavours suck. A few that are sugar free from the start are good though.
I think energy drinks and sodas with sugar tastes weird.
Makes your teeth feeling sticky and friction against themselves too
When dudes cum in your mouth? Have fun with that bro, I support your right to that.
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.
Soda isn’t meant for human consumption, but the marketing is strong
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.”
Coca cola and Dr Pepper both have 40g sugar in a can
Heck orange juice is like 35g per serving
Note that there’s also nuance in the sort of sugar.
Orange Juice has the natural sugars of the fruit, which is at least less of an issue than the refined sugars added to other sorts of drinks.
Eating the orange seems to be healthier than drinking the juice, but it seems like drinking the juice isn’t too bad either, presumably as long as you don’t overdo it.
Is this for the entire 330ml can? If so, that’s ok. Usually juices have 15g/100ml, so I guess RedBull is healthier (not as unhealthy).
First of all, did you not notice where it said ‘1 can’ at the top???
Second of all, you got a link that backs up your claim? I’d love to read that and take the piss out of juice next
Lmao big talk from the dude that never heard of rdi before today
I did notice, but I don’t see any volume anywhere.
And, my bad, the one that I have with 15g of sugar is a “smoothy”, juices are only 10g/100ml
Fair enough
Idk if it has the volume in it, but it’s where I got the info from. If not, just assume it’s a 330ml can ig
As a caffeine source, I would argue the bigger problem is a missed opportunity to get the phytonutrients in coffee or tea. For most people, their daily coffee might very well be the only source of polyphenols they get that day.
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.
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.
If you don’t already have T2D then sugar intake won’t give you T2D
You don’t know that. The endocrine system is complicated, and Type 2 Diabetes usually shows up after a period of increasing insulin resistance, and then prediabetes.
Insulin resistance can come after your blood insulin levels remain chronically elevated, such as when you keep feeding yourself things that raise blood sugar.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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
