Take that, red bull bonces!!!
I thought that the sugar industry worked really hard to ensure they didn’t have to show a daily % amount on the right across from the grams listing. I have never seen a % there before. Crazy.
The slogan, “RedBull gives you Wings” needs an asterisk. It only applies to those who are grated into heaven after they die of diabeetus
This comment made my shit night
Wait why are you not drinking red bull zero
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.
“Nah im not tired or insomniac i just love consuming 3 cans of bull piss every single day it tastes just good”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.
50g??? Damn, that is bad
Nah it’s just the total amount of the calories that is from suger. It only … hmm… only has 26g of sugars in it.
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.
Just looked at the Mexican coke I just finished drinking 😭 39g sugar…
When you visualize it like this, it makes you think twice about grabbing that sugary beverage. Having said that, I still like a red bull here and there, and sugar free just ain’t the same.
Edit removed slop, changed pic
Hmm, according to this graphic 7 == 9 == 10 > 14. I see LLMs still can’t do math
Yeah, I fucking hate the post AI Internet. I used to be able to find the relevant image when I searched it up, not AI garbage.
That’s not even the worst thing: his first image that he posted had a Frappuccino labelled as ‘mountain dew’ not a joke
Um… excuse me, but isn’t Mountain Dew that pop drink in america? Why tf is Frappuccino labeled as Mountain Dew?
I didn’t notice that. Probably slop. Here’s a better image
Here’s one of the total amount of sugar in a Monster Zero Sugar.
Fair enough, although it would be better with numerical measurements
There are few drinks that I can’t stand the smell of but Redbull just smells fucking disgusting.
You probably shouldn’t look at the sugar in the sweet tea from McDonald’s then…
Actually, I believe I know it despite not living in America: isn’t it 29 grams of sugar for a large?
Ooooo… don’t tempt me… McDonald’s has a memeable slogan too…
On second thought: I think Spurlock beat me to it (because he was telling the tru- oh wait…)
I mean, diabetes also gives you wings?
As the old southern ladies say: I got dem sugars from the Red Bull.
39 grams of sugar in a 12 oz can of Coke.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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…
deleted by creator
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.
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?
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?
If you believe in a Christian heaven, then the original slogan is still true. They should probably just go with “Red Bull. This shit will kill you” to be more secular.
