My son will be dementia proof! We basically tried our best to not give him any added sugar until he was 3. Now, he will rule over all you demented peasants!
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
74 points (97.4% liked)
science
28173 readers
312 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
“Added” sugar and natural sugar .. soesnt matter
The body turns both of it into glucagon in your body anyway, and in insulin spikes. Doesnt matter if its natural carbs from flour or the sugars found in an apple, or table sugar stuffed in your drink. (Of course fructose is a bit different as thats handled in your liver…)
I get that, and we limited all sugar, but he still had fruits and veggies. Just no candy, ice cream, cupcakes, anything like that. I think that’s still an improvement over the regular American diet.
Without reading the article, I assume the lower risk is for the parent, not the child.
So we’re basically all fucked, compared to what we’ve seen so far. I definitely ate more sugar as a young child than my grandmother, born just before WWI. My parents might have had more than me (though almost certainly not), but lots of places still had food rations for much of the baby boomers’ early childhood.
Yeah, my grandmother was born in Italy in the 30s and probably never had processed sugar in her life. She got dementia. She also lived with dementia for 15 years, severe for the last 10, which is crazy. Fortunately, she never seemed, while I was around, scared or anything, just very quiet, like she was lost in her own thoughts, which I guess she was.
I call bullshit. Didn't read the paper but:
How you are going to know about the sugar intake? Trust me bro.
Causality!=causation
“More research is needed to better understand the potential relationship between sugar intake and the development of dementia." 👍
Causality!=causation
🤔
Edit: If I understand correctly, you use causality in the physics sense, meaning just that something happens after something else (accounting for the speed of light). It seems that in almost all contexts, the two terms are synonyms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation?wprov=sfla1 - basically all disambiguation targets assume the terms are equivalent.
I'll just assume the second word (or the first, doesn't matter) should have been "correlation". It doesn't make sense otherwise.
Sugar is already heavily linked to dementia
Its starting to called type 3 diabetes
Sugar is a completely unnecessary nutrient for humans anyway