Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Sweetener - Good or Bad?
Options
Replies
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/two-diet-drinks-a-day-could-double-the-risk-of-diabetes-study-fi/
Two diet drinks a day could double the risk of diabetes, study finds
Oh yeah, this must be why they are recommended to diabetics by the American Diabetes Association: http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/what-can-i-drink.html
And since when does correlation imply causation?
Who said anything about causation of anything in the article.
Literally the title of the article. "Two Diet Drinks a Day Could Double the Risk of Diabetes, Study Finds "
"Double" is used as a verb, with the subject being "Diet Drinks", which grammatically means that the subject is performing the verb.
It's a fear-mongering click-bait article based on a retrospective study that found a correlation. It means nothing other than the Telegraph is making money from all the clicks it is getting.
And one of the "experts" had this incredibly scientific statement to make:Tam Fry, from the National Obesity Forum, said: “This is yet another warning that sweetened drinks, though appearing harmless on the surface, can mess things up inside you. Why should you want to take that risk when a glass or two of water will slake your thirst and not put your health in jeopardy? "
Yes, when I want to make sure I sound smart and credible I use the phrase "can mess things up inside you."
But it does not claim Diet Drinks "does" cause diabetes. There could be other factors beyond the diet drinks coming into play. The bottom line is drinking a liter a day is associated with a 10 fold risk of diabetes. I think the decrease in fertility is a concern to many older women wanting to have a baby.
"Prof Christine Williams, Professor of Human Nutrition, University of Reading, said the findings were "very interesting" with both types of drinks appearing to have a large effect on diabetes risks.
“Even when the findings were adjusted to account for other factors that could explain the findings, such as greater energy intake, higher BMI or poor diet, the risks remained significantly higher for the higher intake groups," she said,
“A most interesting finding was that the higher risk was the same for both sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages, suggesting that greater risk of diabetes was not directly related to higher calorie intake, or adverse metabolic effects of sugar (in the form of sucrose) from the sweetened drinks."
Last year, a study by Harvard University suggested that two cans of fizzy pop could increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
The study found the drinks raised the risk of heart attacks by one third and the risk of strokes by one sixth.
Other studies have linked sugary drinks to a raised risk of prostate cancer.
A 15-year study found those drinking 300ml of fizzy drinks daily had a 40 per cent higher chance of the disease.
Earlier this week, a study found women who regularly consume soft drinks may be reducing their chances of getting pregnant.
The study of 524 patients found a link between artificial sweeteners, such as those used in “diet” sodas, and lower fertility rates, while use of sugar in soft drinks and added to coffee was associated with poorer quality of eggs and embryos.
One of Britain’s leading fertility experts described the findings as “highly significant”, and warned women not to underestimate the effects of food additives on their likelihood of conception."
You are quoting like you've read any of these studies. Have you? Or are you just copy pasting from an online article you read?
In my opinion its rather intellectually dishonest to cite a study that you yourself have not read and comprehended. It asks others to just accept the interpretations of an online blogger on the results of a study that you yourself haven't bothered to read.
The intellectually honest way to respond to this would be to take hours and hours of my time to read a study, follow up on their references (hours and hours more) to comprehend their approach and interpret their results and see what the correlaries are. Of course if you haven't read the study that would result in you taking 2 minutes and me taking 2 days which isn't exactly fair.
If I responded instead by applying a similar amount of effort I would just google "sweetners don't cause diabeties" and just copy-paste whatever online blogger I found who wrote an article about it. You'd probably find that about as convincing as I find you posting online articles you found so I'm figuring why bother.14 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/two-diet-drinks-a-day-could-double-the-risk-of-diabetes-study-fi/
Two diet drinks a day could double the risk of diabetes, study finds
Oh yeah, this must be why they are recommended to diabetics by the American Diabetes Association: http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/what-can-i-drink.html
And since when does correlation imply causation?
Who said anything about causation of anything in the article.
Literally the title of the article. "Two Diet Drinks a Day Could Double the Risk of Diabetes, Study Finds "
"Double" is used as a verb, with the subject being "Diet Drinks", which grammatically means that the subject is performing the verb.
It's a fear-mongering click-bait article based on a retrospective study that found a correlation. It means nothing other than the Telegraph is making money from all the clicks it is getting.
And one of the "experts" had this incredibly scientific statement to make:Tam Fry, from the National Obesity Forum, said: “This is yet another warning that sweetened drinks, though appearing harmless on the surface, can mess things up inside you. Why should you want to take that risk when a glass or two of water will slake your thirst and not put your health in jeopardy? "
Yes, when I want to make sure I sound smart and credible I use the phrase "can mess things up inside you."
But it does not claim Diet Drinks "does" cause diabetes. There could be other factors beyond the diet drinks coming into play. The bottom line is drinking a liter a day is associated with a 10 fold risk of diabetes. I think the decrease in fertility is a concern to many older women wanting to have a baby.
"Prof Christine Williams, Professor of Human Nutrition, University of Reading, said the findings were "very interesting" with both types of drinks appearing to have a large effect on diabetes risks.
“Even when the findings were adjusted to account for other factors that could explain the findings, such as greater energy intake, higher BMI or poor diet, the risks remained significantly higher for the higher intake groups," she said,
“A most interesting finding was that the higher risk was the same for both sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages, suggesting that greater risk of diabetes was not directly related to higher calorie intake, or adverse metabolic effects of sugar (in the form of sucrose) from the sweetened drinks."
Last year, a study by Harvard University suggested that two cans of fizzy pop could increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
The study found the drinks raised the risk of heart attacks by one third and the risk of strokes by one sixth.
Other studies have linked sugary drinks to a raised risk of prostate cancer.
A 15-year study found those drinking 300ml of fizzy drinks daily had a 40 per cent higher chance of the disease.
Earlier this week, a study found women who regularly consume soft drinks may be reducing their chances of getting pregnant.
The study of 524 patients found a link between artificial sweeteners, such as those used in “diet” sodas, and lower fertility rates, while use of sugar in soft drinks and added to coffee was associated with poorer quality of eggs and embryos.
One of Britain’s leading fertility experts described the findings as “highly significant”, and warned women not to underestimate the effects of food additives on their likelihood of conception."
Gale, I'm no scientist, but this is how the data was obtained:A self-administered questionnaire including a large number of questions on health and lifestyle factors was sent by mail to all cases and controls.
The participants were asked to recall their eating and lifestyle habits, retrospectively. This is not a reliable way to obtain sound data for speculating a cause for something.
Just as a little anecdote to illustrate what I'm talking about: My husband participates in stuff like this all of the time. He answers market research questionnaires all of the time in order to get free stuff. He has learned that if he answers everything a certain way, he will be more likely to get free stuff. He's never honest on the questionnaires.
People are notoriously dishonest when asked for information on the lifestyle and eating habits. Ask any doctor. Ask any dentist ("How often do you floss" is never answered honestly). This was not a good study. But it did establish a correlation, which the writer of this article is clinging onto for dear life.8 -
Well, I'm no scientist but....oh wait, yes I am. Hah hah...boom.
Sorry...couldn't resist :-)16 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Well, I'm no scientist but....oh wait, yes I am. Hah hah...boom.
Sorry...couldn't resist :-)
<cerebral crush>
Be skeered :bigsmile:3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/two-diet-drinks-a-day-could-double-the-risk-of-diabetes-study-fi/
Two diet drinks a day could double the risk of diabetes, study finds
Huh...can anyone actually find this study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=European+Journal+of+Endocrinology+[JOURNAL]+AND+Löfvenborg+[AUTHOR]
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q="European+Journal+of+Endocrinology"+[JOURNAL]+AND+Löfvenborg+[AUTHOR]+&btnG=&as_sdt=1,48&as_sdtp=
I'm not having any luck.
If you just normal google it all you get is articles like this talking about how a study was performed. Can't find the actual study.
Ah...got it.
http://www.eje-online.org/content/175/6/605.full?sid=ba47ad6e-ddee-4bfc-bc32-09f399c4ed22
I'd recommend that anyone who actually cares about this read the actual study, not articles written by journalists interpreting the study. Might also want to note that the study was a survey. It was a questionaire sent out to people and the result with drinks containing sweetener was no different than their control of other drinks.
My personal hypothesis about this diet drink - obesity - diabetes link they keep seeing is that people who are overweight are more likely than people who are not overweight to drink diet soda. Those people are also more likely to be obese or to develop obesity-related diseases. None of the statistics I've seen over the last 20 years has convinced me that there is any real functional association; it's a casual correlation owing to voluntary behavior modifications.8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/two-diet-drinks-a-day-could-double-the-risk-of-diabetes-study-fi/
Two diet drinks a day could double the risk of diabetes, study finds
Huh...can anyone actually find this study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=European+Journal+of+Endocrinology+[JOURNAL]+AND+Löfvenborg+[AUTHOR]
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q="European+Journal+of+Endocrinology"+[JOURNAL]+AND+Löfvenborg+[AUTHOR]+&btnG=&as_sdt=1,48&as_sdtp=
I'm not having any luck.
If you just normal google it all you get is articles like this talking about how a study was performed. Can't find the actual study.
Ah...got it.
http://www.eje-online.org/content/175/6/605.full?sid=ba47ad6e-ddee-4bfc-bc32-09f399c4ed22
I'd recommend that anyone who actually cares about this read the actual study, not articles written by journalists interpreting the study. Might also want to note that the study was a survey. It was a questionaire sent out to people and the result with drinks containing sweetener was no different than their control of other drinks.
My personal hypothesis about this diet drink - obesity - diabetes link they keep seeing is that people who are overweight are more likely than people who are not overweight to drink diet soda. Those people are also more likely to be obese or to develop obesity-related diseases. None of the statistics I've seen over the last 20 years has convinced me that there is any real functional association; it's a casual correlation owing to voluntary behavior modifications.
Yup
And you
Also <cerebral crush>
1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/two-diet-drinks-a-day-could-double-the-risk-of-diabetes-study-fi/
Two diet drinks a day could double the risk of diabetes, study finds
Huh...can anyone actually find this study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=European+Journal+of+Endocrinology+[JOURNAL]+AND+Löfvenborg+[AUTHOR]
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q="European+Journal+of+Endocrinology"+[JOURNAL]+AND+Löfvenborg+[AUTHOR]+&btnG=&as_sdt=1,48&as_sdtp=
I'm not having any luck.
If you just normal google it all you get is articles like this talking about how a study was performed. Can't find the actual study.
Ah...got it.
http://www.eje-online.org/content/175/6/605.full?sid=ba47ad6e-ddee-4bfc-bc32-09f399c4ed22
I'd recommend that anyone who actually cares about this read the actual study, not articles written by journalists interpreting the study. Might also want to note that the study was a survey. It was a questionaire sent out to people and the result with drinks containing sweetener was no different than their control of other drinks.
My personal hypothesis about this diet drink - obesity - diabetes link they keep seeing is that people who are overweight are more likely than people who are not overweight to drink diet soda. Those people are also more likely to be obese or to develop obesity-related diseases. None of the statistics I've seen over the last 20 years has convinced me that there is any real functional association; it's a casual correlation owing to voluntary behavior modifications.
Exactly. Correlation is an invalid marker for most anything and can be twisted any way one desires. For example, I see a lot of obese people exercising; therefore exercise must be one of the prime causes of obesity. Makes sense, right?
9 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/two-diet-drinks-a-day-could-double-the-risk-of-diabetes-study-fi/
Two diet drinks a day could double the risk of diabetes, study finds
Huh...can anyone actually find this study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=European+Journal+of+Endocrinology+[JOURNAL]+AND+Löfvenborg+[AUTHOR]
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q="European+Journal+of+Endocrinology"+[JOURNAL]+AND+Löfvenborg+[AUTHOR]+&btnG=&as_sdt=1,48&as_sdtp=
I'm not having any luck.
If you just normal google it all you get is articles like this talking about how a study was performed. Can't find the actual study.
Ah...got it.
http://www.eje-online.org/content/175/6/605.full?sid=ba47ad6e-ddee-4bfc-bc32-09f399c4ed22
I'd recommend that anyone who actually cares about this read the actual study, not articles written by journalists interpreting the study. Might also want to note that the study was a survey. It was a questionaire sent out to people and the result with drinks containing sweetener was no different than their control of other drinks.
My personal hypothesis about this diet drink - obesity - diabetes link they keep seeing is that people who are overweight are more likely than people who are not overweight to drink diet soda. Those people are also more likely to be obese or to develop obesity-related diseases. None of the statistics I've seen over the last 20 years has convinced me that there is any real functional association; it's a casual correlation owing to voluntary behavior modifications.
Pretty much yeah. You select out of the population a subpopulation of people who drink a lot of diet drinks chances are you are selecting out people who are struggling with their weight (which is why they choose diet drinks in the first place) and of course obesity correlates with diabeties.1 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »Oxymoron: My opinion is that our bodies are not made to digest chemicals.
If you present something as a fact, you better be prepared to back up that statement. With good quality sources and data. Especially in a debate forum.
And everything we eat is made up of chemicals.2 -
A "study" based upon self-reported surveys isn't even a "study" - it's simply a poll. There's no research or science involved in it, it's simply asking questions (which can be cleverly slanted toward the desired result) and tabulating the results. Self-reporting is the least valid method of data acquisition (surpassed only by outright guessing) and basically invalidates any findings as nothing more than speculative correlation. Classic example of "garbage in, garbage out".2
-
Consider the source.1
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »Consider the source.
Already duly noted. Lol.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/two-diet-drinks-a-day-could-double-the-risk-of-diabetes-study-fi/
Two diet drinks a day could double the risk of diabetes, study finds
Oh yeah, this must be why they are recommended to diabetics by the American Diabetes Association: http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/what-can-i-drink.html
And since when does correlation imply causation?
Who said anything about causation of anything in the article.
Literally the title of the article. "Two Diet Drinks a Day Could Double the Risk of Diabetes, Study Finds "
"Double" is used as a verb, with the subject being "Diet Drinks", which grammatically means that the subject is performing the verb.
It's a fear-mongering click-bait article based on a retrospective study that found a correlation. It means nothing other than the Telegraph is making money from all the clicks it is getting.
And one of the "experts" had this incredibly scientific statement to make:Tam Fry, from the National Obesity Forum, said: “This is yet another warning that sweetened drinks, though appearing harmless on the surface, can mess things up inside you. Why should you want to take that risk when a glass or two of water will slake your thirst and not put your health in jeopardy? "
Yes, when I want to make sure I sound smart and credible I use the phrase "can mess things up inside you."
But it does not claim Diet Drinks "does" cause diabetes.
But it does claim that they cause an increased risk of diabetes when, in fact, they only correlate with an increased risk.
This is intellectual dishonesty because, as we all know, correlation does not equal causation.6 -
Your opinion is your opinion. It doesn't mean it ISN'T wrong. The issue here is when people get refuted by actual evidence from clinical studies or from other people with more knowledge on the subject, their ego gets in the way of accepting that they could be incorrect. No one wants to be wrong, but if information is wrong, you should step back and accept it. I've had to do it a few times on the boards.MountainMomma58 wrote: »My opinion is my opinion, thus not wrong. Many, many articles about what chemicals do to your body, possible effects on the immune system, cancer links, weight gain, fatigue, etc. If you don't believe it, fine.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
7 -
Your opinion is your opinion. It doesn't mean it ISN'T wrong. The issue here is when people get refuted by actual evidence from clinical studies or from other people with more knowledge on the subject, their ego gets in the way of accepting that they could be incorrect. No one wants to be wrong, but if information is wrong, you should step back and accept it. I've had to do it a few times on the boards.MountainMomma58 wrote: »My opinion is my opinion, thus not wrong. Many, many articles about what chemicals do to your body, possible effects on the immune system, cancer links, weight gain, fatigue, etc. If you don't believe it, fine.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
There is a tendency to confuse what an opinion is. Chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, my opinion. No one can scientifically prove which is better, better is relative. The earth is flat, not an opinion, a scientifically proven fact. Anyone who believes otherwise is just wrong, regardless of what they think...4 -
The earth is flat, not an opinion, a scientifically proven fact. Anyone who believes otherwise is just wrong, regardless of what they think...
Your opinion is your opinion. It doesn't mean it ISN'T wrong. The issue here is when people get refuted by actual evidence from clinical studies or from other people with more knowledge on the subject, their ego gets in the way of accepting that they could be incorrect. No one wants to be wrong, but if information is wrong, you should step back and accept it. I've had to do it a few times on the boards.MountainMomma58 wrote: »My opinion is my opinion, thus not wrong. Many, many articles about what chemicals do to your body, possible effects on the immune system, cancer links, weight gain, fatigue, etc. If you don't believe it, fine.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Found the flat-earther! 4 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
The earth is flat, not an opinion, a scientifically proven fact. Anyone who believes otherwise is just wrong, regardless of what they think...
Your opinion is your opinion. It doesn't mean it ISN'T wrong. The issue here is when people get refuted by actual evidence from clinical studies or from other people with more knowledge on the subject, their ego gets in the way of accepting that they could be incorrect. No one wants to be wrong, but if information is wrong, you should step back and accept it. I've had to do it a few times on the boards.MountainMomma58 wrote: »My opinion is my opinion, thus not wrong. Many, many articles about what chemicals do to your body, possible effects on the immune system, cancer links, weight gain, fatigue, etc. If you don't believe it, fine.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Found the flat-earther!
Lol! Yes I got that backwards.... haha
Meant to say the earth is NOT flat... lol
6 -
I have been assured by cancer doctors numerous times that diet coke (artificial sweetners) does not cause cancer.
In terms of good or bad, limiting how much diet coke I consume makes it easier to stay within my calorie goal. I am not sure why but believe it is related to the artificial sweetners and caffeine. I have no idea if there is science behind this but limiting diet coke isn't harmful so it's what I do as help for the calorie goal and sleeping.
I have tried baking with artificial sweetners without what I consider successful results. I'd rather have the sugar and count the calories.
1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/two-diet-drinks-a-day-could-double-the-risk-of-diabetes-study-fi/
Two diet drinks a day could double the risk of diabetes, study finds
Oh yeah, this must be why they are recommended to diabetics by the American Diabetes Association: http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/what-can-i-drink.html
And since when does correlation imply causation?
Who said anything about causation of anything in the article.
Literally the title of the article. "Two Diet Drinks a Day Could Double the Risk of Diabetes, Study Finds "
"Double" is used as a verb, with the subject being "Diet Drinks", which grammatically means that the subject is performing the verb.
It's a fear-mongering click-bait article based on a retrospective study that found a correlation. It means nothing other than the Telegraph is making money from all the clicks it is getting.
And one of the "experts" had this incredibly scientific statement to make:Tam Fry, from the National Obesity Forum, said: “This is yet another warning that sweetened drinks, though appearing harmless on the surface, can mess things up inside you. Why should you want to take that risk when a glass or two of water will slake your thirst and not put your health in jeopardy? "
Yes, when I want to make sure I sound smart and credible I use the phrase "can mess things up inside you."
But it does not claim Diet Drinks "does" cause diabetes.
But it does claim that they cause an increased risk of diabetes when, in fact, they only correlate with an increased risk.
This is intellectual dishonesty because, as we all know, correlation does not equal causation.
I don't think the actual study claims that, just the internet article.1 -
I have been assured by cancer doctors numerous times that diet coke (artificial sweetners) does not cause cancer.
In terms of good or bad, limiting how much diet coke I consume makes it easier to stay within my calorie goal. I am not sure why but believe it is related to the artificial sweetners and caffeine. I have no idea if there is science behind this but limiting diet coke isn't harmful so it's what I do as help for the calorie goal and sleeping.
I have tried baking with artificial sweetners without what I consider successful results. I'd rather have the sugar and count the calories.
I think that is a perfectly reasonable individual response.
Ie you individually have found, for whatever unknown reason, that consuming diet coke makes keeping within your calorie goal harder and keeps you awake ( the latter probably being the caffeine)
And as you say limiting diet coke certainly is not harmful so if somebody doesn't want to drink it - don't. Simple.
Nobody would object to that.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions