I know it doesn’t ‘cause’ it, per se, but it’s still a ‘factor’ (or can be, rather) yet it seems some disagree with that description.
I know it doesn’t ‘cause’ it, per se, but it’s still a ‘factor’ (or can be, rather) yet it seems some disagree with that description.
Yes, because it’s ambiguous.
Define sugar.
Define consume.
It’s a blanket statement without nuance.
Also everyone consumes sugars in some form - i.e. Carbohydrates.
The simpler the carb, the greater the volume, the more of a concern/risk.
Such ambiguous statements are a major problem with the medical community these days, as all sorts of things get communicated without any quantification.
Things like you’re at a greater risk of X because of Y.
OK, how much greater? 60%? Or 0.006%? Is that absolute risk or relative risk?
The blood pressure debate is awash with this problem. As is the realm of biologics (used for autoimmune/autoinflammatory diseases) when looking at increased risk for infections. Yes, there’s an increased risk, but across the board of all biologics that increase is something like 1 case in 5000 man-years - with no determination if that’s truly because of the biologic or because they study participants already have immune dysregulation
And for specific biologics and specific diseases, there’s no demonstrable increase in risk, based on massive meta-analysis.
The devil is in the details.