you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 2 months ago (19 children)

That’s not a bad idea. It is addictive. Tax it like alcohol and tobacco. I’ve watched a subset of diabetics scream that they need sugar no matter what healthcare tries to say about it. Tears. More often, anger and spiteful overconsumption in reaction to being told no. (A subset, not all.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (12 children)

    If a diabetic has low blood sugar, then they literally DO need sugar, and fast!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    Which is true, and a good argument in favor of diabetics having easy access to sugary things -- not having them when they're needed can literally be life-threatening. It is not, however, am argument for everyone having easy access to them -- corporations bet on people getting addicted to them, and sugary drinks in particular give a sharp increase in risk for developing diabetes (according to one study, 25% increase in risk per 16oz sugary drink per day).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -10 points 2 months ago* (10 children)
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    My wife has diabetes and I can tell that you think you know what you're talking about, but you're very wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    They're making some shitty assumptions that someone will read and pass off as fact. Some asshole manager somewhere will read that bullshit and tell a diabetic they can wait to eat because it's no big deal because wanderingwanderer needs to feel like they said their peace about shit they don't live with.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    You message is is medically wrong, It misunderstands both diabetes and hypoglycemia, and it gives unsafe advice.

    A diabetic with low blood sugar absolutely does need fast‑acting sugar.
    That’s not optional, not “only if they messed up,” and not something complex carbs can fix quickly enough.

    Hypoglycemia is an acute medical emergency, especially for insulin‑dependent diabetics.

    Complex carbs (starches) take 20–60 minutes to digest.

    A hypoglycemic diabetic can lose consciousness in under 5 minutes.

    Simple sugars are only necessary if they messed up by not eating enough and already have dangerously low levels.

    This is false.

    Hypoglycemia is extremely common in diabetics, especially those using insulin or sulfonylureas. It is not a separate condition. It is a direct consequence of diabetes treatment.

    Insulin overdose

    Delayed meals

    Exercise

    Alcohol

    Illness

    Normal day‑to‑day variation in insulin sensitivity

    All can cause hypoglycemia in diabetics.

    So saying “that’s hypoglycemia, not diabetes” shows a misunderstanding of how diabetes works.

    You should consider educating yourself about diabetic hypoglycemia or insulin_overdose. before you start handing out medical advice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    I wasn't handing out medical advice. Notice nothing I said was directed towards hypoglycemics? If someone has the medical condition then chances are they talk about it with their doctors already and know what they need to

    The one thing I stand corrected on is that diabetics can have hypoglycemia as a complication of their medication. That makes sense. I wasn't thinking about that because I assumed it's usually a more carefully administered dose. But it's reasonable that sometimes shit happens. But diabetes is still hyperglycemia, and as you stated, diabetic hypoglycemia is a response to medication.

    That being said, you're acting like you're contradicting me by saying fast-acting sugars are necessary in an emergency. But the thing is, I clearly stated that emergencies are the moments when simple sugars are needed rather than complex carbs.

    People who suffer from standalone hypoglycemia can prevent acute crises by eating enough complex carbs throughout the day. As long as they do that, they don't require simple fast-acting sugars. Those are only needed when blood sugar drops dangerously low, as I already stated.

    I don't know enough about diabetes to say whether insulin-induced hypoglycemia functions the same way. I imagine it could drop off more precipitously. I don't know how easy or difficult it is to administer the right dose of insulin at the right time, or to manage blood sugar levels by consuming complex carbs through the day rather than relying on simple sugars during emergencies. I don't have a horse in that race.

    The point is though, simple sugars are only necessary during emergencies. And for standalone hypoglycemia at least, consuming complex carbs throughout the day is much healthier and safer than waiting till there's an emergency and then hitting the soda like it's an epi-pen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    I wasn’t thinking about that because I assumed

    Don't go on rants about medical shit you know nothing about before you spread disinformation and get someone hurt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I wasn't going on a rant, I was responding to your comment which was just as long. If typing in multiple paragraphs is a rant, you were ranting too.

    And what I said wasn't disinformation. Non-diabetic hypoglycemics exist, and you pretending that they don't is harmful. Do you really want to tell a person with anorexia that they don't need to consume complex carbs throughout the day because they can just take fast-acting sugars when they get dangerously low blood sugar?

    We can keep talking past each other all we want, but it seems we're talking about two different things. I already said I stand corrected about diabetics not having hypoglycemia. But I was correct in that it's a complication from their medication, an overcorrection, and not the diabetes itself.

    There's a very clear medical distinction between symptoms of an illness and side effects of a medication. But if all you're interested in is self-righteous accusations then I'm not going to be party to this conversation any longer. You can rant to yourself in the corner if you'd like.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I've reported the disinformation and now i'm blocking you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Go ahead, I really don't care. It's not disinformation, you just don't believe that non-diabetic hypoglycemics exist.

    Also, telling hypoglycemics that they don't need complex carbs throughout the day and can rely on simple sugars during emergencies, which is what you're doing, is harmful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I was one of those people who knew my lifestyle was unhealthy, and turning it around was always just one week away. The diagnosis of type II felt like a loss of agency. Like it was no longer my choice to cut back on, or to cut out sugar.

    Once the initial shock of diagnosis and grief over all the foods I'd lost settled down, the truth was clear. I had made the choice. The choice to open every single one of those sodas, the choice to go with convenience over health. The choice to kick the can down the road, and I still had the choice to diet, or die slowly.

    Not gonna lie and say my diet is perfect now but, according to my NP, my labs paint the picture of someone successfully managing diabetes. I know I still have some work to do though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    That's what we are doing in Finland. Sugar free drinks are taxed at 20c/l but other drinks can go up to 59c/l depending on the sugar amount

    Just checked prices from one grocery store and coke zero 24-pack is 15.50€ while the regular one is 19.50€

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Overall, Coke is most affordable compared with minimum wage in England, especially when Coke Zero is on offer, then Helsinki; in the US it takes the most minimum-wage work to buy a litre, and because regular and sugar-free cost exactly the same, there’s no price incentive at all to choose the sugar-free one.

    In England for a 24 pack (330ml?), sugar is £15 (€17.5, $20 USD), sugar free is £12 with a deal for £8.50 (€10, $11.5 USD), no deals for the sugar one! £12.71 is minimum wage here (€14.86, $17.21 USD). In US Walmart I see 24 pack of sugar and non sugar for $15.37 USD (12 OZx24) and US minimum wage is $7.25 USD (£5.40, €6.30).

    Location and drink EUR per litre GBP per litre USD per litre
    Helsinki — regular Coke €2.46 £2.10 $2.85
    Helsinki — Coke Zero €1.96 £1.67 $2.26
    England — regular Coke €2.22 £1.89 $2.56
    England — Coke Zero, normal price €1.77 £1.52 $2.05
    England — Coke Zero, offer price €1.26 £1.07 $1.45
    US Walmart — regular Coke €1.56 £1.33 $1.80
    US Walmart — Coke Zero €1.56 £1.33 $1.80
    Location and wage benchmark EUR/hour GBP/hour USD/hour Work for 1 litre of regular Coke Work for 1 litre of Coke Zero
    Helsinki — first-year supermarket minimum €11.61 £9.92 $13.43 12.7 minutes 10.1 minutes
    UK — adult minimum wage €14.87 £12.71 $17.20 8.9 minutes 7.2 minutes normally; 5.1 on offer
    US — federal minimum wage €6.27 £5.36 $7.25 14.9 minutes 14.9 minutes
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Sugar free drinks are taxed at 20c/l

    Does that include artificial sweeteners? I have some sort of prejudice against them that I couldn't substantiate with research, but one thing is certain: none of them felt good to me.

    I am much happier with drinking less sweet beverages overall, but made with regular sugar. Actually tend to spend less that way, even if I pay more for less - I just happen to be buying that much less frequently that way.

  • source
  • parent