Over the centuries, this crystalline sweetener has invaded everyone’s snacks, drinks, guts, and minds. It has caused its fair share of controversy, too.

Although everyone is familiar with sugar as a concept, we’ll start with a brief explainer.

What is sugar?

Sugar is a soluble carbohydrate — a biological molecule consisting of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms. Other carbohydrates include starch and cellulose, which is a structural component of plant cell walls.

Simple sugars, or monosaccharides, include glucose and fructose. Granulated sugar is a compound sugar, or disaccharide, known as sucrose, which consists of glucose and fructose. During digestion, the body breaks down disaccharides into monosaccharides.

Still, the chemistry of sugar does not explain its infamy. The substance gained its dastardly reputation because it tastes delicious and, if consumed too freely, is bad for our health.

1. Sugar is addictive

Some experts believe sugar is an addictive substance. For instance, the authors of a controversial narrative review in 2017 write:

“Animal data has shown significant overlap between the consumption of added sugars and drug-like effects, including bingeing, craving, tolerance, withdrawal, cross-sensitization, cross-tolerance, cross-dependence, and reward and opioid effects.”

However, this review focuses on animal studies. As the authors of another review explain, “there is a methodological challenge in translating this work because humans rarely consume sugar in isolation.”

Dr. Dominic M. Dwyer from Cardiff University’s School of Psychology explains, “Although certainly present in some people, addiction-like behaviors toward sugar and other foods are present only in a minority of obese individuals. However, we should remember that sugar can drive the overconsumption of foods alongside its addiction-like potential.”

Along similar lines, Prof. David Nutt, Chair of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs and head of the Department of Neuropsychopharmacology and Molecular Imaging at Imperial College London, writes:

“There is not currently scientific evidence that sugar is addictive, although we know that sugar has psychological effects, including producing pleasure, and these are almost certainly mediated via brain reward systems.”

It is worth noting that even though health experts do not class sugar as an addictive substance, that does not make it healthful.

2. Sugar makes kids hyperactive

This is perhaps the most common myth associated with sugar: eating candy causes children to run wild. In fact, there is no scientific evidence that sugar increases hyperactivity in the vast majority of children.

For instance, a 1995 meta-analysis in JAMA combined data from 23 experiments across 16 scientific papers. They concluded:

“This meta-analysis of the reported studies to date found that sugar (mainly sucrose) does not affect the behavior or cognitive performance of children.”

However, people with children may doubt the truth of this conclusion. 

3. Sugar causes diabetes

Another relatively common myth is that sugar directly causes diabetes. However, there is no direct link between the two. The confusion perhaps arises because there is an intrinsic association between blood sugar levels and diabetes.

The story is a little more complicated, though. Overweight and obesity are risk factors for type 2 diabetes, and consuming high levels of sugar does increase the likelihood of developing overweight or obesity. However, sugar is not the direct cause of type 2 diabetes.

As for type 1 diabetes, dietary and lifestyle factors do not play a part.

4. Avoid fruit when dieting

Fruits are delicious, partly because they are sweet, thanks to naturally occurring sugars. Because of their sugar content, some people believe that we should avoid eating fruit when maintaining a moderate weight.

This is a myth. Fruits contain a range of healthful compounds, including a variety of vitamins and minerals, and fiber.

Fruit consumption is associated with health benefits, including a reduced mortality rate.

One study concluded that freeze-dried mango “does not negatively impact body weight but provides a positive effect on fasting blood glucose.” Another study found that consuming blueberries enhanced insulin sensitivity.

However, it is worth noting that the two studies mentioned above received grants from the National Mango Board and the United States Highbush Blueberry Council, respectively.

Make of that what you will, but there is no doubt that consuming fruit benefits health. Removing it from our diet to reduce sugar intake would be a mistake.

5. We must eliminate sugar from our diet

Because we know consuming excess sugar is bad for health, it makes sense to reduce our intake. However, it is not necessary to remove it from our diet entirely.

As we noted above, fruits contain sugar, and they benefit health, so cutting it from our diet would be counter-productive.

As with everything in life, moderation is key. With that said, sweetened beverages, such as soda, have associations with several negative health consequences, including kidney damage, cellular aging, hip fractures, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and more.

Cutting soda from our diets would certainly  be a fantastic idea.

6. Sugar causes cancer

Despite the rumors, most experts do not believe sugar directly causes cancer or fuels its spread.

Cancer cells divide rapidly, meaning they require a great deal of energy, which sugar can provide. This, perhaps, is the root of this myth.

However, all cells need sugar, and cancer cells also require other nutrients to survive, such as amino acids and fats, so it’s not all about sugar. According to Cancer Research UK:

“There’s no evidence that following a sugar-free diet lowers the risk of getting cancer, or boosts the chances of surviving if you are diagnosed.”

As with diabetes, there is a twist — increased sugar intake has links with weight gain, while overweight and obesity are linked with increased cancer risk.

So, although sugar does not directly cause cancer and does not help it thrive, if someone consumes high levels of sugar and develops obesity, their risk increases.

Scientists are continuing to investigate the relationship between cancer and sugar intake. If there are links between the two, they are likely to be convoluted. For instance, the American Cancer Society write:

“There is evidence that a dietary pattern high in added sugars affects levels of insulin and related hormones in ways that may increase the risk of certain cancers.”

One study, which included data from 101,279 participants, concluded that “total sugar intake was associated with higher overall cancer risk,” even after controlling for multiple factors, including weight.

Other researchers have found links between sugar intake and specific cancers, such as endometrial cancer and colon cancer. However, for now, the link is not as solid as the rumor mill claims.

The take home

Sugar is a much-researched topic. Typing “sugar health” into Google Scholar brings up more than 78,000 results from 2020 alone. Navigating this amount of content is unwieldy, and, as with any scientific topic, there are disagreements.

Something to bear in mind is that many studies investigating the health impacts of sugar receive funding from the food industry. One review of research into soft drink consumption, nutrition, and health examined the results of 88 relevant studies.

They found “clear associations” between soft drink intake, body weight, and medical issues.” Tellingly, they also report that “studies funded by the food industry reported significantly smaller effects than did non-industry-funded studies.”

Although there are a number of misunderstandings surrounding sugar, some things are certain: although it might not directly cause diabetes or cancer, eating high levels of sugar is not healthful. Moderation, I am afraid, is the solution.

• Growing evidence is showing that COVID-19 affects kids differently than adults.
• Children experience lower infection rates, accounting for less than 10 percent of cases in the United States.
• Infectious disease specialists say there are several factors that seem to protect children: immunity to seasonal coronaviruses, underdeveloped sinuses, and fewer chronic health conditions.

A new model from researchers in Israel found that kids are half as susceptible to COVID-19 compared to adults.

The report published Thursday, Feb. 11, in PLOS Computational Biology also found that people under 20 are less likely to transmit the virus to other people.

Growing evidence has showed that COVID-19 affects kids and younger people differently.

Children experience lower infection rates, accounting for less than 10 percent of cases in the United States.

When kids do get the disease, the symptoms are typically milder.

They also appear to transmit the virus less and are not primary drivers of community transmission.

Dr. Sharon Nachman, the chief of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Stony Brook Children’s Hospital, said the lower rates of infection in kids are likely due to many factors.

“These could include a different immune response to virus as compared to adults, the frequent lack of comorbid conditions in many children, and ongoing/frequent exposures to other coronaviruses, and possibly some cross-variant nonspecific immunity,” Nachman said.

What the modeling found

The researchers evaluated transmission data of 637 households in Bnei Brak, Israel.

All individuals underwent PCR testing, and some of the participants were given serological antibody tests.

The researchers then took those findings and adjusted them to reflect the coronavirus’s overall infection and transmission rates.

They found that kids are 43 percent as susceptible to COVID-19 compared to adults.

The findings suggest kids transmit COVID-19 far less than adults. That is, the ability of children to pass the virus is about 63 percent compared to adults.

Children are also less likely to produce positive PCR tests, which looks for genetic material of the virus, even when they have the virus.

This could explain why kids have lower diagnosis rates across the globe.

“After monitoring the [COVID-19] pandemic for over a year, the data are clear,” said Dr. Robert Hamilton, a pediatrician at Providence Saint John’s Health Center, “children have been spared the ravages of this illness.”

“Around the world, study after study has shown that children and adolescents account for only 1 to 3 percent of all cases, and that even fewer ultimately required hospitalization,” Hamilton said.

Why are kids less susceptible to COVID-19?

Dr. Amy Baxter, a clinical associate professor at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, and CEO of PainCareLabs, suspects children are less affected by COVID-19 because of their underdeveloped sinuses.

“SARS-CoV-2 replicates in the nasopharynx, and children have extremely underdeveloped sinuses until about age 12,” Baxter told Healthline.

Baxter pointed out that even when children test positive for COVID-19, they may be less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2.

“Even if the swab seems to show the same viral load, the tank size is so much different that kids’ immune systems aren’t triggered in the same way because they likely don’t absorb nearly as many copies of [the] virus,” Baxter said.

SARS-CoV-2 is usually nasally inhaled before it develops into COVID-19. From there, it travels past the nose and into the nasal cavities where the virus latches onto certain receptors called ACE2 and makes copies of itself to create an infection.

Dr. Kathleen Jordan, an infectious disease specialist and senior vice president of medical affairs at the women’s health provider Tia, suspects the lower attack rate in kids has to do with the fact that children generally don’t have as many health conditions or comorbidities as adults.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

lists obesity and type 2 diabetes as health conditions that can increase the risk of severe COVID-19.

Jordan thinks it’s a “combination of higher comorbidities in adults that increase their risk while some characteristics unique to children also protect them, such as immune characteristics and decreased propensity to clotting and inflammatory disorders in general.”

But there are many other theories scientists are looking into.

Kids may have higher immunity from other seasonal coronaviruses

that cause the common cold.

“Immunity to these coronavirus cousins of [SARS-CoV-2] viruses seems to confer some protection against [COVID-19] as well,” Hamilton said.

This crossover immunity may keep their immune systems sharp and ready to attack the novel coronavirus.

“It may be that age is the best protection for COVID,” Nachman noted.

There may be differences in microbiota, vitamin D levels, and melatonin that provide some degree of protection.

“These tempered pathways may play a role in why the disease is so much milder in children and less likely to cause symptoms or end organ damage as seen by these pathways in adults,” Jordan said.

What this means for community transmission

More research is needed to better understand kids’ role in transmitting the virus that causes COVID-19, specifically if and how schools and childcare centers fuel transmission.

However, children are not thought to be key drivers of transmission in schools or their communities.

A study from Ireland evaluating 40,000 people found that kids under 15 were half as likely to get and pass the coronavirus.

Still, kids can contract SARS-CoV-2, and COVID-19 spreads wherever humans interact, schools and childcare facilities included.

But given the growing evidence, Hamilton said many researchers and physicians feel the risks of keeping kids out of school — like depression and anxiety — are greater than the risk of contracting the new coronavirus in a school setting.

Podding, physical distancing, and mask wearing are effective measures for mitigating transmission in schools, Jordan noted.

“We have seen that school is the safest place for our children,” Nachman said. “In pretty much each school that is open to in-person learning, and with masking and some part of social distancing, there is almost no transmission of virus.”

The bottom line

A new model from researchers in Israel found that kids are half as susceptible to COVID-19 compared to adults.

They’re also less likely to transmit the illness and tend to produce negative PCR tests even when they have the virus.

Infectious disease specialists say there’s multiple factors that seem to protect children, such as immunity to seasonal coronaviruses, underdeveloped sinuses, and less comorbidities.

Given the evidence, many health experts believe the benefits of in-school learning outweigh the risks of contracting the coronavirus in a school setting.

Still, COVID-19 spreads wherever humans are, so mitigation measures such as face masking, physical distancing, and pod learning can help offset disease transmissions in childcare and learning facilities.

Of all the modern medical interventions we have at our disposal, few have been victim to as much falsehood as vaccines. As the world battles a pandemic, stripping the truth from the lies is more urgent than ever.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), between 2010 and 2015, vaccines prevented an estimated 10 million deaths.

Scientists have worked tirelessly to create safe and effective vaccines to protect us against SARS-CoV-2. Now, as many governments roll out COVID-19 vaccines, scientists and medical experts are facing a new challenge: misinformation and associated vaccine hesitancy.

Some anti-vaxxers — individuals who believe vaccines cause a range of medical ills — dedicate their entire lives to railing against vaccines. In reality, vaccines have saved lives of millions of people.

Vaccine hesitancy is nothing new and, in many ways, perfectly reasonable. For instance, misinformation about the vaccines’ safety and potential effects on the body is rife on the internet. Also, the COVID-19 vaccines were developed unusually swiftly and use relatively new technology.

Today, a significant percentage of the United States population, and the world at large, are nervous to take a shot that could save their lives.

In this article, we tackle some of the most common myths associated with the COVID-19 vaccines. Although it will not convince dyed-in-the-wool anti-vaxxers, we hope that this information will prove useful for those who are hesitant.

1. The vaccines are not safe, because they were developed so fast

It is true that scientists developed the COVID-19 vaccines faster than any other vaccine to date — under 1 year. The previous record breaker was the mumps vaccine, which was developed in 4 years.

There are a number of reasons the COVID-19 vaccines were developed more quickly, none of which reduces its safety profile.

For instance, scientists were not starting from scratch. Although SARS-CoV-2 was new to science, researchers have been studying coronaviruses for decades.

Also, because COVID-19 has touched every continent on earth, the process of vaccine development involved an unprecedented worldwide collaboration. And, while many scientific endeavors face funding difficulties, COVID-19 researchers received funding from a wide range of sponsors.

Another factor that slows vaccine development is recruiting volunteers. In the case of COVID-19, there was no shortage of people who wanted to help.

Also, under normal circumstances, clinical trials are run sequentially. But in this instance, scientists could run some trials simultaneously, which saved a great deal of time.

These factors and more meant that the vaccine could be developed swiftly without compromising safety.

In short: identifying the virus was quicker; we already had experience with similar pathogens; technology has moved on since the 1980s; every government on earth had a vested interest; and there were few financial restraints.

2. The vaccine will alter my DNA

Some COVID-19 vaccines, including the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, are based on messenger RNA (mRNA) technology. These vaccines work differently to traditional types of vaccine.

Classical vaccines introduce an inactivated pathogen or part of a pathogen to the body to “teach” it how to produce an immune response.

By contrast, an mRNA vaccine delivers the instructions for making a pathogen’s protein to our cells. Once the protein is created, the immune system responds to it, priming it to respond to future attacks by the same pathogen.

However, the mRNA does not hang around in the body, and it is not integrated into our DNA. Once it has provided the instructions, the cell breaks it down.

In fact, the mRNA will not even reach the cell’s nucleus, which is where our DNA is housed.

3. COVID-19 vaccines can give you COVID-19

The COVID-19 vaccines cannot give an individual COVID-19. Regardless of the type of vaccine, none contains the live virus. Any side effects, such as headache or chills, are due to the immune response and not an infection.

4. The vaccine contains a microchip

A YouGov poll conducted in the U.S. last year asked 1,640 people a range of questions about COVID-19. An incredible 28% of respondents believe that Bill Gates plans to use the COVID-19 vaccinations as a vehicle to implant microchips into the population.

According to some, this microchip will allow shadowy elites to track their every move. In reality, our mobile phones already complete that task effortlessly.

There is no evidence that any of the COVID-19 vaccines contains a microchip.

Although the specifics vary from conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory, some believe that the vaccine contains radio-frequency identification tags. These consist of a radio transponder, radio receiver, and transmitter. It is not possible to shrink these components to a size small enough to fit through the end of a needle.

5. COVID-19 vaccines can make you infertile

There is no evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines impact fertility. Similarly, there is no evidence that they will endanger future pregnancies.

This rumor began because of a link between the spike protein that is coded by the mRNA-based vaccines and a protein called syncytin-1. Syncytin-1 is vital for the placenta to remain attached to the uterus during pregnancy.

However, although the spike protein does share a few amino acids in common with syncytin-1, they are not even nearly similar enough to confuse the immune system.

The rumor appears to have begun courtesy of Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg. In December of last year, he petitioned the European Medicines Agency to halt COVID-19 vaccine trials in the European Union. Among his concerns was the syncytin-1 “issue” mentioned above.

Dr. Wodarg has a history of skepticism toward vaccines and has downplayed the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Wodarg and the former vice president and chief scientist of Pfizer Inc. pharmaceuticals joined voices to make claims about the vaccine producing infertility, thus stoking widespread fears.

However, there is no evidence that any COVID-19 vaccine affects fertility.

6. The COVID-19 vaccine contains fetal tissue

Over the years, anti-vaxxers have spread rumors that vaccines contain fetal tissue. Neither the COVID-19 vaccines nor any other vaccine contains any tissue from fetuses.

As Dr. Michael Head, a senior research fellow at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom, told the BBC, “There are no fetal cells used in any vaccine production process.”

7. People who have had COVID-19 do not need the vaccine

Even people who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the past should be vaccinated. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) write:

“Due to the severe health risks associated with COVID-19 and the fact that reinfection with COVID-19 is possible, [a] vaccine should be offered to you regardless of whether you already had [a SARS-CoV-2] infection.”

There is also a chance that the initial test produced a false positive — in other words, the test was positive, but there was no viral infection. For this reason, it is better to err on the side of caution.

8. After receiving the vaccine, you cannot transmit the virus

COVID-19 vaccines are designed to prevent people from becoming ill following a SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, a person who has been vaccinated may still be able to carry the virus, which means that they might also be able to transmit it.

Because scientists do not yet know whether the vaccines will prevent infection, once a person has been vaccinated, they should continue to wear a mask in public, wash their hands, and practice physical distancing as recommended by regional authorities.

9. Once I have been vaccinated, I can resume a normal life

Unfortunately, for the reasons mentioned above, this is not true.

10. The vaccine will protect against COVID-19 for life

Because scientists have only been studying the virus for around 1 year, we do not know how long immunity will last. According to the WHO:

“It’s too early to know if COVID-19 vaccines will provide long-term protection. […] However, it’s encouraging that available data suggest that most people who recover from COVID-19 develop an immune response that provides at least some period of protection against reinfection — although we’re still learning how strong this protection is and how long it lasts.”

It may be that we will need to have an annual COVID-19 shot, in the same way that we do with the flu shot.

11. People with preexisting conditions cannot take the vaccine

This is untrue. People with most preexisting conditions — including heart disease, diabetes, and lung disease — can take a COVID-19 vaccine. However, if anyone is concerned, it is always advisable to speak with a doctor.

In fact, because preexisting conditions, such as obesity and heart disease, can increase the risk of developing more severe COVID-19 symptoms, being vaccinated is even more important for people with preexisting health issues.

There is an exception: individuals who are allergic to any of the components of the vaccine should not have the shot. Anyone who has had an allergic reaction to any vaccine in the past should speak with their doctor.

However, the CDC recommend “that people with a history of severe allergic reactions not related to vaccines or injectable medications — such as food, pet, venom, environmental, or latex allergies — get vaccinated. People with a history of allergies to oral medications or a family history of severe allergic reactions may also get vaccinated.”

12. People with compromised immune systems cannot have the vaccine

Because the vaccine does not contain a live pathogen, it will not cause an infection. Therefore, individuals who have a compromised immune system can still take the vaccine. However, they may not build up immune protection to the same degree as someone with a fully functioning immune system.

The CDC also explain that few people who have a compromised immune system were involved in the vaccine trials:

“Immunocompromised individuals may receive [a] COVID-19 vaccination if they have no contraindications to vaccination. However, they should be counseled about the unknown vaccine safety profile and effectiveness in immunocompromised populations.”

13. Older adults cannot have the vaccine

This is a myth. Currently, in most countries where officials are rolling out the vaccine, older adults are being prioritized, as they are most at risk of severe illness.

Also, some of the clinical trials had specific subgroups that included older adults to check the vaccine’s safety in this population.

In Norway, 23 frail older adults died shortly after they received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. This, perhaps, helps explain why this myth is gaining traction.

The Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA) are currently investigating the situation. Steinar Madsen, a medical director at NOMA, believes that common adverse reactions, such as fever, nausea, and diarrhea, “may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly.”

Madsen also explained that “these are very rare occurrences, and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease.” He went on to add,

“We are now asking for doctors to continue with the vaccination but to carry out extra evaluation of very sick people whose underlying condition might be aggravated by it.”

The take-home

It is hard to believe that not much more than 1 year ago, COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 were entirely unknown. Now, we have a number of viable, effective, and safe vaccines.

In this internet-fueled era, rumors grow and spread like wildfire. The addition of a significant dose of fear and anxiety provides the perfect petri dish in which to grow stubborn, dangerous myths.

The situation and the science are moving quickly, and the best advice is to ensure that you always take information from reliable sources and do not pay attention to powerful but misleading social media posts.

The novelty of the COVID-19 vaccines may seem daunting for some, and it is natural for questions to arise on their effectiveness. In this feature, we examine the difference between effectiveness and efficacy, compare the COVID-19 frontrunner vaccines to other vaccines, such as the flu shot, and compare their safety considerations.

All data and statistics are based on publicly available data at the time of publication. Some information may be out of date. Visit our coronavirus hub and follow our live updates page for the most recent information on the COVID-19 pandemic.

As Pfizer/BioNTech roll out their COVID-19 vaccine throughout the United Kingdom and the United States, the world wonders how effective it will be.

Looking at the three leading vaccines that we have previously reported on, Pfizer/BioNTech boasts 95% efficacy, the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine candidate has an average of 70% efficacy, while the Moderna vaccine candidate reportedly has 94.1% efficacy.

Effectiveness vs. efficacy — what is the difference?

Firstly, it is worth noting that “effectiveness” and “efficacy” are not the same. Despite news outlets frequently using them interchangeably, efficacy refers to how a vaccine performs under ideal lab conditions, such as those in a clinical trial. In contrast, effectiveness refers to how it performs in the real world.

In other words, in a clinical trial, a 90% efficacy means that there are 90% fewer cases of disease in the group receiving the vaccine compared with the placebo group.

However, the participants chosen for a clinical trial tend to be healthier and younger than those in the general population, and they generally have no underlying conditions. Furthermore, researchers do not normally include certain groups in these studies, such as children or pregnant people.

So, while a vaccine can prevent disease in a trial, we might see this effectiveness drop when administered to the wider population.

However, that is not in itself a bad thing.

Globally, diabetes is becoming increasingly prevalent, as are the myths and misconceptions that surround it. Here, we discuss 11 of these repeated untruths.

Currently, around 1 in 10 people in the United States have diabetes. Globally, more than 422 million people are living with the disease.

Although diabetes is a familiar word, symptoms vary, and the biological mechanisms involved are complex. Because it is both common and complicated, half-truths abound.

Unfortunately, some of the myths we cover in this article increase the stigma attached to diabetes. For this reason alone, it is essential to challenge these falsehoods.

Firstly, we will briefly explain what diabetes is and highlight the differences between the three most common forms of diabetes: type 1, type 2, and gestational diabetes.

Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which the immune system attacks the pancreas cells that create insulin. It tends to occur earlier in life than type 2 diabetes. In type 2 diabetes, the body does not make enough insulin, does not respond well to insulin, or both.

At least 90% of people with diabetes in the U.S. have type 2.

Gestational diabetes, as the name suggests, occurs during pregnancy. During pregnancy, the body needs more insulin. Gestational diabetes occurs when the body cannot meet these new requirements.

Although gestational diabetes usually goes away after birth, there is a risk of developing it again during future pregnancies and developing type 2 diabetes later in life.

1. Eating sugar causes diabetes

Eating sugar does not directly cause diabetes. However, consuming a sugary diet can lead to overweight and obesity, which are risk factors for type 2 diabetes.

This is a common myth, perhaps understandably — blood sugar levels play an essential role in diabetes. Sugar itself, though, is not a causal factor.

As ever, the story is complex: there does appear to be a link between regularly drinking soda and risk for type 2 diabetes.

One large study published in 2013 found that, even after controlling for energy intake and body mass index (BMI), drinking soda has links with an increased risk of developing the disease. The study did not find this association in relation to other drinks, such as artificially-sweetened beverages and fruit juices.

Scientists still do not understand why some people develop type 1 diabetes, and others do not. However, nutrition is not a risk factor.

2. Diabetes is not serious

Perhaps because diabetes is so common, some people believe that it is not a serious disease. This is incorrect. There is no cure for diabetes, and there are a host of complications that can occur if a person does not manage the condition well.

Complications include cardiovascular disease, nerve damage, kidney damage, blindness, skin conditions, and hearing impairment.

In 2018, diabetes was the underlying cause of 84,946 deaths in the U.S. The World Health Organization estimate that diabetes caused the death of 1.6 million people in 2016.

3. Diabetes only affects people with obesity

Overweight and obesity are risk factors for type 2 diabetes and gestational diabetes, but the condition can occur in people of any weight. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Diabetes Statistic Report, 2020, 11% of people with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. are neither overweight nor obese.

Type 1 diabetes has no associations with body weight.

4. Obesity always leads to diabetes

Although obesity increases the risk of diabetes, it does not inevitably lead to the disease. According to the CDC, an estimated 39.8% of adults in the U.S. have obesity, but 13% have diabetes.

5. People with diabetes cannot eat sugar

People with diabetes certainly do need to manage their diets carefully: monitoring carbohydrate intake is important. However, they can still incorporate treats.

The American Diabetes Association explain:

“The key to sweets is to have a very small portion and save them for special occasions, so you focus your meals on healthier foods.”

Individuals with diabetes need to carefully plan what and when they will eat to ensure that their blood sugar levels remain balanced.

A related myth is that people with diabetes need to eat special “diabetes-friendly” foods. These products are often more expensive, and some can still raise glucose levels.

6. Diabetes always leads to blindness and amputation

Thankfully, this is a myth. While it is true that diabetes can lead to blindness and amputations in some cases, it is not inevitable. And for individuals who manage their condition carefully, these outcomes are rare.

The CDC estimate that 11.7% of adults with diabetes have some level of vision impairment. Lower-extremity amputation occurs in around 0.56% of people with diabetes in the U.S.

Experts have identified several risk factors that increase the likelihood of experiencing diabetes-related complications. These include obesity and overweight, smoking, physical inactivity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol.

7. People with diabetes should not drive

A diabetes diagnosis does not automatically mean that someone needs to stop driving. In a position statement on diabetes and driving, the American Diabetes Association explain:

“Most people with diabetes safely operate motor vehicles without creating any meaningful risk of injury to themselves or others.”

However, they also explain that, if concerns arise, people should undergo assessment on an individual basis. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation:

“People with diabetes are able to drive unless they are limited by certain complications of diabetes. These include severely low blood glucose levels or vision problems. If you are experiencing diabetes-related complications, you should work closely with your diabetes healthcare team to find out if diabetes affects your ability to drive.”

8. Prediabetes always leads to diabetes

In the U.S., an estimated 88 million, or 1 in 3, adults have prediabetes. Prediabetes is a condition where blood sugar levels are higher than normal but not quite high enough to classify as diabetes. If left unchecked, prediabetes can develop into type 2 diabetes.

However, it is not a given. Lifestyle changes can turn the tide. Regular physical activity and a more healthful diet can stop diabetes in its tracks.

9. People with diabetes cannot be active

Once again, this is untrue. In fact, exercise is an important component in the management of diabetes. Among other things, exercise helps drive weight loss and reduces blood pressure, both of which are risk factors for complications. It can also help the body use insulin better.

However, exercise can impact blood sugar levels in various ways, sometimes increasing it and, at other times, decreasing it.

According to Diabetes U.K., “Some days, you’ll do exactly the same type of activity and eat the same foods, but your blood sugar levels may act differently to what you’d expect.”

They also offer tips for managing blood sugar during activity:

• Check your blood sugar while exercising and keep a record of how it behaves to show your doctor. This can help guide any necessary changes in insulin.
• For people who are at risk of hypos, keep fast-acting carbohydrates close to hand.
• Wear diabetes identification so that people can help if needed.

10. You can ‘catch’ diabetes

This is a myth. Pathogens do not cause diabetes, so a person cannot pass it to someone else. Doctors classify it as a noncommunicable disease.

11. Some natural products cure diabetes

Currently, there is no cure for diabetes. Any claims that a product can cure diabetes are false. Many herbal or natural products will do little or nothing and, in some cases, they can potentially cause harm; diabetes.co.uk explain:

“Because certain herbs, vitamins, and supplements may interact with diabetes medications (including insulin) and increase their hypoglycemic effects, it is often argued that using natural therapies could reduce blood sugars to dangerously low levels and raise the risk of other diabetes complications.”

Diabetes is a complex but common disease. As its prevalence increases, it is essential to overturn myths as we find them.