New research indicates that consuming sugar in liquid form could pose a greater health risk than once believed.
The findings come from an international study led by Brigham Young University (BYU) in partnership with institutions in Germany. Researchers examined health data from more than 500,000 individuals across various regions and discovered a strong connection between sugar-sweetened beverages—like soda and juice—and a heightened likelihood of developing Type 2 diabetes. Interestingly, sugars found in solid foods didn’t show the same correlation and were in some cases even tied to reduced diabetes risk.
Karen Della Corte, the study’s principal investigator and a professor of nutritional science at BYU, emphasized that this was the first time a study clearly established a “dose-response” link between different kinds of sugar intake and diabetes risk. “It highlights why drinking your sugar, whether from soda or juice, is more problematic for health than eating it,” said Della Corte.
The report points to metabolic differences as a likely explanation. Sugars found in sweetened drinks are rapidly absorbed and can spike blood sugar levels, leading to liver dysfunction and increased fat accumulation. This process contributes to insulin resistance—one of the key mechanisms behind Type 2 diabetes.
In contrast, naturally occurring sugars in foods like fruit, whole grains, and dairy come packaged with fiber, fats, or proteins, which help regulate how sugar is processed in the body. These components ease the impact on blood sugar and prevent the liver from becoming overloaded.
“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 peer-reviewed study has been published in the Advances in Nutrition journal.
{Matzav.com}
As Rush Limbaugh used to say, follow the money trail. So who paid for the study? I’m willing to bet it was not the sugar lobby!. It was the seriously anti-sugar lobby. Probably the people who are utterly wacko and don’t want you to enjoy life.
I’m sick and tired of hearing from these people who have no life and want everyone else to join them in their non-life situation. I’m sick and tired of hearing how Europe is better than the United States. If Europe is so much better than the United States why do they want to be a lot more like the United States and a lot less like Europe?
97% of scientists agree with whoever is funding them.
Over the decades :
Caffeine bad, caffiene ok, egg yolk bad, egg yolk healthy, no eggs, 2 eggs, chocolate bad, chocolate great. Studies, studies, more studies. Flouride good, no, it’s bad. 10 almonds a day , no, only 5.
caffeinated coffees a day recommended now , decaf dangerous.white bread a no-no, only whole wheat. Bla bla.
because they will fund the scientists pet projects… at this point i dont think we can trust much in the medical world as drs are taught in universities whose labs are funded by big farma and they therefore teach to put patients on drugs before trying to rectify medical situations with diet changes or other methods and once on the meds patients almost never come off them