this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
69 points (97.3% liked)

science

28617 readers
585 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

dart board;; science bs

rule #1: be kind

lemmy.world rules

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ickplant@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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!

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[–] exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't know why you'd conclude that we're going to be worse off than older generations. Dementia is multifaceted, and associated with a lot of variables, including some that have decreased over time.

Younger generations are far less likely to smoke, less likely to be exposed to concussive or sub concussive head trauma, and less likely to be exposed to loud noises that cause hearing loss. The standard of care for cardiovascular health is different, too, and faster interventions with statins and GLP-1s, greater availability and adherence to vaccine schedules (especially the shingles vaccine), all may result in much better old age health.

Will that make up for greater exposure to other factors that make us less healthy? I'd actually think so.

[–] cosmos8188@leminal.space 1 points 3 weeks ago

Mental conditions are never as straight faced as they may seem. Multi variableness is a factor that shouldnt be dismissed.

[–] Frettchen@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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." 👍

[–] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Asetru@feddit.org 2 points 3 weeks ago

I'll just assume the second word (or the first, doesn't matter) should have been "correlation". It doesn't make sense otherwise.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

There is a strong correlation between diabetes and dementia. Known for decades.

Glucose metabolism is a lazy inefficient way to make ATP, with toxic metabolic products seen to damage brain DNA.