Sugary drinks — from soda to juice — may increase diabetes risk more than food
It's no secret that consuming large amounts of sugar can contribute to chronic health problems. From obesity to cavities, doctors and health experts have warned against high sugar intake for decades.
Now, however, a new study has found that the way the sugar is delivered — whether through a drink or eaten — may make a difference in the risk of type 2 diabetes.
Researchers from Brigham Young University and two German institutions conducted a systematic review of research on type 2 diabetes, a condition that is rising globally, according to a May 27 news release from BYU.
This means the research team looked through previous studies that included data on sugar consumption and the development of type 2 diabetes, then identified new relationships in the data.
They were looking for a 'dose-response relationship,' meaning an increase in the exposure results in an increase or decrease of an adverse medical outcome.
Sugar consumed through drinks like soda, energy drinks and fruit juice were compared to sugar consumed through food in how likely someone who consumed the sugar was to develop type 2 diabetes, according to the release.
The results were published May 27 in the peer-reviewed journal Advances in Nutrition.
'This is the first study to draw clear dose-response relationships between different sugar sources and type 2 diabetes risk,' lead author Karen Della Corte said in the release. 'It highlights why drinking your sugar — whether from soda or juice — is more problematic for health than eating it.'
The research showed someone drinking an additional 12-oz serving of sugar-sweetened drink per day increased their type 2 diabetes risk by 25%, according to the release.
The increase continues for each additional drink, researchers said, and includes things like soft drinks and energy drinks as well as common sports drinks.
'This strong relationship showed that the increased risk began from the very first daily serving with no minimum threshold below which intake appeared to be safe,' according to the release.
Fruit juices may seem like a better option, but the research showed an additional 8-oz serving of 100% fruit juice, nectars and juice drinks raised type 2 diabetes risk by 5%, researchers said.
When compared to sucrose, or table sugar, and the overall sum of naturally occurring sugars in food, about 20 grams of sugar a day didn't increase the type 2 diabetes risk, instead showing a 'surprising protective association.'
'The above risks are relative and not absolute,' researchers said. 'For example, if the average person's baseline risk of developing type 2 diabetes is about 10%, four sodas a day could raise that to roughly 20%, not 100%.'
The difference likely comes down to metabolism, according to the release.
Sugar added to drinks is isolated sugar, and can overwhelm and disrupt the function of the liver, increasing fat and insulin resistance, researchers said.
Sugars in food are often coupled with the other nutrients found in 'whole fruits, dairy products, or whole grains,' which do not overwhelm the liver.
'These embedded sugars elicit slower blood glucose responses due to accompanying fiber, fats, proteins and other beneficial nutrients,' researchers said.
These findings show fruit juice is also an ineffective alternative to whole fruits, as the juice lacks the fiber and natural sugar, according to the release.
'This study underscores the need for even more stringent recommendations for liquid sugars such as those in sugar-sweetened beverages and fruit juice, as they appear to harmfully associate with metabolic health,' Della Corte said. 'Rather than condemning all added sugars, future dietary guidelines might consider the differential effects of sugar based on its source and form.'
The research team includes Della Corte, Tyler Bosler, Cole McClure, Anette E. Buyken, James D LeCheminant, Lukas Schwingshackl and Dennis Della Corte.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Germany's Merz set to press for lower tariffs in Trump meeting
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will today push for reduced American tariffs in his first meeting with US President Donald Trump in Washington, DC. Merz will also highlight his country's increased defense spending and press for stronger American support for Ukraine, hoping to leverage what has so far been a positive, if distant, relationship: The two former businessmen text each other and are on a first-name basis, Handelsblatt noted. The visit is crucial for Merz — Germany's huge manufacturing and carmaking sectors are particularly vulnerable to Trump's steel and auto tariffs — but he also has cards to play, The Wall Street Journal said, and is expected to argue that Washington needs Europe in order to present a unified front against China.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Government moves to dismantle decade-long stance for major energy production: 'This will be a sea-change policy shift'
Germany has let go of its long-standing resistance to nuclear power in what's seen as one of the country's biggest steps toward unlocking more clean energy sources. As the Financial Times reported, officials from both Germany and France say that Berlin will no longer stand in the way when it comes to treating nuclear power the same as renewable energy resources in European Union legislation. This move puts an end to a major disagreement between France and Germany, which had been stalling many key energy decisions in the EU. Germany began to phase out nuclear energy in 2011 after years of discussions and shut down its last three nuclear power stations in 2023. The news comes in the wake of Chancellor Friedrich Merz's election in early May. In the past, Merz has publicly criticized Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power, arguing that it had prevented the country from accessing a reliable and affordable energy source. "This will be a sea-change policy shift," a German official said. Though Merz has not made plans to reopen any nuclear power stations, he has signaled an interest in investing in alternative energy resources. This has gone a long way in soothing any troubled waters with France in regards to nuclear energy programs. "The Germans are telling us: We will be very pragmatic on the issue of nuclear power," a senior French diplomat told the Financial Times. Nuclear energy does not produce direct carbon emissions but can have several environmental impacts. This includes radioactive waste generation, water consumption, and the potential for accidents. However, nuclear power plants have the highest capacity factor compared to other energy sources. Nuclear power can be a very energy-dense source, with a small amount of nuclear fuel needed to generate a large amount of electricity. This can ultimately lead to lower electricity bills for consumers. Guntram Wolff, senior fellow at Bruegel, applauded the move from Germany. "It's a welcome rapprochement that will make the topic of energy easier in the EU," Wolff said. "Politically, Merz is also thinking about the nuclear umbrella." Which of these factors would most effectively convince you to support nuclear energy projects in your area? Lower energy bills Safety and reliability More local jobs Environmental benefits Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A Trump Tariff Case Study: Can the U.S. Again Be the Power Tool King?
My DeWalt 20-volt cordless drill/driver combo set is a beaut—powerful, smooth, comfortable in the hand, and not too expensive; I got it on sale for about a hundred bucks. It's also a tribute to the wonders of the transnational supply chain, its components traversing the earth before they came together and found their way to my door. The drill and driver were made in Mexico, but their batteries were made in China, as were the battery charger and the handy tote bag that came with it. DeWalt, a brand familiar to every woodworker and DIY enthusiast, is a division of Stanley Black & Decker, a global conglomerate headquartered in Connecticut that owns brands including Craftsman, Porter-Cable, Bostitch, and many others. In 2024, it sold $15.4 billion worth of tools. While the company does some domestic manufacturing, its power tools—drills, saws, routers, and the like—are all made abroad. The same is true of most of the power tool brands you'll find at your local Home Depot or Lowe's; many started as American companies but are now part of multinational corporations that do little manufacturing in the United States. Your Milwaukee reciprocating saw and Ryobi sander may sound like they come from the U.S. and Japan, but both companies are owned by Techtronic Industries, which is headquartered in Hong Kong. Your dad called his circular saw a 'skilsaw,' but Skil is now owned by Chervon, a Chinese company. This is just the kind of industrial production President Trump would love to bring back to the U.S., and that, he assures us, tariffs will produce. It's part of a vision for what the American economy should be, where we make stuff again, a world-leading industrial machine humming with capability and power. That goal is shared across the political spectrum; you'd be hard-pressed to find a politician of either party who would say we shouldn't make more things in America. Unfortunately, there are serious impediments to achieving reindustrialization on a large scale, and Trump's policies are just about the worst way to go about it. The woodworking tool industry—what it is today and how it has changed in recent decades—offers a revealing window into the obstacles this effort will face. As a hobbyist woodworker for the last 20 years, I've accumulated a lot of tools. If you asked how many I have, I'd echo the quip gun owners often say: more than I need, but not as many as I want. A tour through my shop goes around the world—a couple of Japanese handsaws, a chisel set from the Czech Republic, a sander made by a German company but built in Malaysia, a table saw blade from Italy. The big machines—the table saw, jointer, and planer (the latter two are used for flattening and truing boards)—have American brand names but were built in Taiwan, which for years has been the place toolmakers go to find the skilled but relatively inexpensive labor that allows them to produce tools at lower cost than they can domestically. And lots of knickknacks from China. When I started woodworking 25 years ago, Chinese tools were mostly junk. That's no longer true; as in so many industries, the quality of Chinese manufacturing has rapidly improved, to the point where some of what is produced there is on par in quality with what is made in Europe or the U.S.—if those products are made in the U.S. at all. So what woodworking tools are still made here? The big companies may make some accessories here, but for the most part, the industry is confined to small manufacturers of relatively high-priced, niche products that don't even try to compete on price. For instance, I own a nice hand plane made by WoodRiver, the house brand of the retail chain Woodcraft; right now it sells for around $175. It was made in China, but it's solid quality, unlike some Chinese planes you can get on Amazon for 50 bucks. If you want to buy a similar American plane, you can get one from Lie-Nielsen, which does its manufacturing in Maine. It will cost you $385. I like my plane, but I'm told that using a Lie-Nielsen plane is almost a religious experience. When I told Deneb Puchalski of Lie-Nielsen about my plane, he scoffed. 'You know what that WoodRiver is? That is a direct copy of a Lie-Nielsen plane,' but made in China with cheaper labor and less exacting standards. There are other manufacturers that have carved out a similar space in the market. Woodpeckers, which manufactures in Ohio, makes measuring and marking tools, along with a variety of jigs and fixtures. It is considered the gold standard of quality; if you need a combination square that's accurate to 0.001 inches and has a host of innovative features, that's the brand you'd choose. It will also cost you $179.99. The last combination square I bought was made by Irwin Tools, which has been bought and sold many times since it was founded in 1885. Today, Irwin is another subsidiary of Stanley Black & Decker. My basic Irwin square, which was made in China, cost me $15. It may not spark joy, but it works the major spending bills Joe Biden signed—the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, the bipartisan infrastructure law—his administration fashioned an industrial policy built on manufacturing, centered on both critical technologies such as semiconductors and 'place-based' interventions targeting struggling areas to create high-tech centers that could spur an area-wide revival. It may be some time before we know just how successful that strategy was (and it may depend on how much of it Trump decides to dismantle). But it was focused and limited. If we decided that we wanted to reshore production of a wider variety of goods—including something like power tools—could we do it? The answer is a qualified yes: We could, but it would have to be done methodically, and it would take a long time—years or even decades. The Chinese manufacturing system that today seems so powerful developed over an extended period, through a combination of determination, substantial government support, and an almost limitless supply of inexpensive labor. A retired manufacturing engineer told me that when his company began moving production to China two decades ago, they encountered a mirror image of their domestic challenges: When they needed to make an alteration to their domestic U.S. production, the key question was whether more labor would be involved; material costs were trivial in comparison. Their Chinese partners were only concerned about material costs and dismissed any concerns about labor; they could always hire plenty of workers for very little. Over time, China developed integrated manufacturing hubs that enable quick production of things like power tools: a company that makes motors, another company that makes injection molds, another that makes springs and screws, all working together and ready to contract with large corporations to produce their products. We still have that kind of integrated system in some sectors like autos, but much of it has departed. As for woodworking equipment, 'very little of it is made in the United States anymore, because the companies that made that stuff took their manufacturing overseas so they didn't have to pay American wages,' says Puchalski. We could rebuild those manufacturing ecosystems in the U.S., but we can't just wish it into existence. 'It took time to send all this stuff over to China, and it's going to take time to retrieve it all,' says economist Susan Helper of Case Western University, who served in senior roles in the Obama and Biden administrations, including managing industrial strategy. Tariffs can play a role in that process, but they would have to be carefully designed and predictable enough to allow businesses to do long-term planning. They would have to remain in place to give the domestic industry time to develop, and account for the fact that even American manufacturers often need to import materials from overseas. Lie-Nielsen, for instance, gets iron ore from Canada. 'Sourcing material is always an issue, particularly with the political environment today. That could become crippling' if tariffs go too high, Puchalski says. 'Companies like ours that are relatively small are going to be hit the hardest.' Since foreign labor will be cheaper than American labor for the foreseeable future, any domestic manufacturer that wants to be competitive on price will have to get more out of each worker, which means automation. And that means creating fewer jobs than we might like. The Trump administration has circled around that problem. 'President Trump is interested in the jobs of the future, not the jobs of the past,' said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently. 'We don't need to necessarily have a booming textile industry like where I grew up again, but we do want to have precision manufacturing and bring that back.' Precision manufacturing can offer good jobs, but not as many. In fact, this entire debate seems animated by a vision of a bygone time. 'Manufacturing jobs in the past have been good jobs,' says Susan Helper. 'I think that's less to do with something inherent in the nature of manufacturing and more to do with the time period in which the U.S. became a manufacturing power, which was also one in which unions were able to organize.' That ensured good wages and benefits. But the 'manufacturing wage premium'—the degree to which factory workers make higher wages than similar workers in other kinds of jobs—'has eroded quite significantly.' Not only that, she adds, 'it was never true that all manufacturing jobs were good jobs. Some of them were pretty terrible.' Just ask the women of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. Without unions, working in a factory isn't necessarily better than working in a Walmart or a Starbucks. And if we aren't talking about vital national security interests (relevant in the case of, say, semiconductors), there may be a limit to how much we want to invest in bringing production of goods like power tools back to the U.S., especially if it means drastically higher prices in the short run. Businesses will respond rationally to the incentives they have. Executives at Stanley Black & Decker said on their latest earnings call that they are migrating some of their manufacturing—the products destined for the U.S.—away from China to mitigate the risks associated with ongoing trade tensions. They didn't say where they were migrating it to, but Mexico—where my drills were made—is a good bet. At the end of our conversation, I told Puchalski that I've always wanted a Lie-Nielsen plane, but the purchase has been stuck in the 'someday' category. 'Someday could be tomorrow,' he said, assuring me that once I got one of their gorgeous American-made tools, I'd never go back. I'm sure he's right, but I haven't been able to bring myself to spend the money just yet.
