Think all sugar is equally bad? Think again.
A massive new study reveals that the source of sugar makes all the difference. While sugary drinks like soda and even fruit juice sharply increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, sugars in solid foods—especially nutrient-rich ones—may actually be less harmful or even protective. The findings challenge long-standing dietary assumptions and suggest it’s time to rethink how we talk about sugar and health.
Not All Sugars Are Equal
For years, we’ve heard that sugar is one of the main drivers behind the global rise in type 2 diabetes. But new research from Brigham Young University is changing the way we look at sugar. According to the findings, where your sugar comes from matters just as much as how much you consume.
In the most extensive analysis of its kind, researchers from BYU and institutions in Germany examined data from over 500,000 people across multiple continents. Their discovery? Sugars from drinks like soda and even fruit juice were consistently linked to a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). Surprisingly, sugars from other sources did not show this same risk. In fact, some were even linked to a lower risk.
Why Drinking Sugar Is Riskier
“This is the first study to draw clear dose-response relationships between different sugar sources and type 2 diabetes risk,” said Karen Della Corte, lead author and BYU nutritional science professor. “It highlights why drinking your sugar—whether from soda or juice—is more problematic for health than eating it.”
Even after accounting for factors like body mass index, overall calorie intake, and several other lifestyle risk factors, the differences were striking:
- With each additional 12-oz serving of sugar-sweetened beverages (i.e., soft drinks, energy drinks, and sports drinks) per day, the risk for developing T2D increased by 25%. This strong relationship showed that the increased risk began from the very first daily serving with no minimum threshold below which intake appeared to be safe.
- With each additional 8-oz serving of fruit juice per day (i.e., 100% fruit juice, nectars and juice drinks), the risk for developing T2D increased by 5%.
- The above risks are relative not absolute. For example, if the average person’s baseline risk of developing T2D is about 10%, four sodas a day could raise that to roughly 20%, not 100%.
- Comparatively, 20 g/day intakes of total sucrose (table sugar) and total sugar (the sum of all naturally occurring and added sugars in the diet) showed an inverse association with T2D, hinting at a surprising protective association.
The Metabolic Consequences of Liquid Sugar
Why drinking sugar would be more problematic than eating sugar may come down to the differing metabolic effects. Sugar-sweetened beverages and fruit juice supply isolated sugars, leading to a greater glycemic impact that would overwhelm and disrupt liver metabolism, thereby increasing liver fat and insulin resistance.
On the other hand, dietary sugars consumed in or added to nutrient-dense foods, such as whole fruits, dairy products, or whole grains, do not cause metabolic overload in the liver. These embedded sugars elicit slower blood glucose responses due to accompanying fiber, fats, proteins, and other beneficial nutrients.
Fruit Juice Isn’t a Free Pass
Fruit juice, even with some vitamins and nutrients, is much less beneficial. Because of its high and concentrated sugar content, the researchers conclude that fruit juice is a poor substitute for whole fruits, which provide more fiber to support better blood glucose regulation.
“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.”
Reference: “Dietary Sugar Intake and Incident Type 2 Diabetes Risk: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies” by Karen A Della Corte, Tyler Bosler, Cole McClure, Anette E Buyken, James D LeCheminant, Lukas Schwingshackl and Dennis Della Corte, 21 March 2025, Advances in Nutrition.
DOI: 10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100413
BYU professors James LeCheminant and Dennis Della Corte, as well as students Tyler Bosler and Cole McClure, were also co-authors on the study, recently published in the journal Advances in Nutrition.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
9 Comments
Someone needs to understand Diabetes and do this study over again. You are Very wrong and Misleading. My wife is T1 Juvenile for 40 years. I am T1 LAD for 35 years. My 2 brothers are T2 for decades. Sugar in any form, Sucralose, Sucrose, HFCS, CS, we all fight with all of those. We avoid them at all cost along with rice, wheat bread and corn. When we inadvertently digest any one of those it takes roughly 39 hours and double insulin to bring the blood glucose back down from 300. I did not understand Sugar Free Syrup. The Sucralose. Table Suger Is You Enemy. This article is so WRONG. People, do not read anything into this article. I am ashamed of you guys for posting this article. Not all studies are good studies. And when it comes to Diabetes, if you do not have diabetes you have no business doing a study on diabetes. You do NOT know what you are talking about.
Sucralose does not affect blood sugar levels
The article only says that those foods don’t increase risk of getting diabetes—it should have highlighted that people with diabetes, still need to avoid them.
The study is about the risk of DEVELOPING diabeties not managing it. You should try to fully read and understand an article before you scold over it. And, just because you have diabetes doesn’t mean you can gatekeep diabetes research. Thats an insane opinion. Get checked out by a liscensed therapist. Preferably one whos not also insane.
As a parent, I find this information potentially very useful in reducing the risk of my kids becoming diabetic and potentially insane with low reading comprehension skills
This study was brought to you by Nestle.
It is difficult to find sodas sweetened with sucrose. Almost all are sweetened with high fructose corn syrup. Does it make a difference? Maybe. It seems that the obesity epidemic developed after the introduction of high fructose corn syrup.
Clyde, do you mean Sucralose and not sucrose?
Sucrose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose.
High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) can have as much as 45% glucose and 55% fructose.
High fructose corn syrup does have a slightly different chemical structure from sucrose, but I’d consider sucrose and HFCS to both be bad for health.
I was speaking about sucrose, NOT sucralose. As I understand it, there is a slight difference between sucrose and HFCS that you didn’t mention. In the case of sucrose, there is a weak chemical bond between the glucose and fructose subunits that is broken during digestion. Whereas the HFCS is an admixtute of glucose and fructose where the glucose is derived from some of the fructose. In a time when we are concerned about toxins that are measured in parts per billion, or less, it might well be that the extra industrial processing of HFCS is leading to microcontamination that hasn’t been found because it hasn’t been looked for. There isn’t much incentive to look for residual contaminants at the PPB-level because HFCS is cheaper to manufacture than sucrose. That means that there is actually a disincentive to look for something that might turn the soda industry on its head in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
Note the section about Bee Keeping in the HFCS article.
This is not new information. The FDA is largely responsible for the incorrect classification of fiber which controls how the body processes sugar. There needs to be a differentiation between soluble and non soluble fiber. The foods that are high in soluble fiber will mitigate the negative effects of sugar.