Diet Drinks

2»

Replies

  • zeejane03
    zeejane03 Posts: 993 Member
    Slowfaster wrote: »
    Rubbish reporting? It says quite clearly in the first article that the study only shows correlation and not causation, that more studies are needed and that it seems to be only certain types of small vessel strokes. It's only meant as something to think about, a heads up for people in certain risk groups.

    There's no rule that says studies shouldn't be reported until there's absolute proof over thousands of people and fifty years. A lot of pregnant American women would have been taking thalidomide if that was required.

    Still, I guess if scientific research doesn't carry as much weight with you as your observations of people you know then, it wont matter to you.

    I do wonder, though, where you people who don't trust health news got the idea that it's unhealthy to be overweight. If anecdotal evidence is what you live by, surely you know people who are both overweight and old.

    You can find science writers on the internet who don't believe there's any real causation between obesity and disease. They believe the diseases are caused by other things, not yet discovered. Who knows? Maybe the reason so many overweight people have diabetes and strokes is that more overweight people drink diet drinks? Or maybe they drank high fructose corn syrup in their baby formula? Or they have more air conditioning in their homes?

    I was a 110 pound woman all my life until I quit smoking and gained about sixty pounds. My doctor always says I'm far better off 60 pounds overweight than being a smoker. Of course he's just a doctor.

    Here's a tip for those who think anything's good if it makes you thin -- find somebody with TB and see if they'll give you some. They don't call it consumption for nothing.

    When I was overweight my health markers were bad. I have hard data that shows that. Lost the extra weight and now my health markets are good. I have hard data that shows that too.

    And I do respect legitimate scientific research. That's why I don't have a problem with artificial sweeteners.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 10,076 Member
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    The study wasn’t rubbish the reporting of the results were - there is a very distinct diffetence

    Thank you. Meh, was just away for two hours or so and could not write this myself.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 10,076 Member
    zeejane03 wrote: »
    Slowfaster wrote: »
    Rubbish reporting? It says quite clearly in the first article that the study only shows correlation and not causation, that more studies are needed and that it seems to be only certain types of small vessel strokes. It's only meant as something to think about, a heads up for people in certain risk groups.

    There's no rule that says studies shouldn't be reported until there's absolute proof over thousands of people and fifty years. A lot of pregnant American women would have been taking thalidomide if that was required.

    Still, I guess if scientific research doesn't carry as much weight with you as your observations of people you know then, it wont matter to you.

    I do wonder, though, where you people who don't trust health news got the idea that it's unhealthy to be overweight. If anecdotal evidence is what you live by, surely you know people who are both overweight and old.

    You can find science writers on the internet who don't believe there's any real causation between obesity and disease. They believe the diseases are caused by other things, not yet discovered. Who knows? Maybe the reason so many overweight people have diabetes and strokes is that more overweight people drink diet drinks? Or maybe they drank high fructose corn syrup in their baby formula? Or they have more air conditioning in their homes?

    I was a 110 pound woman all my life until I quit smoking and gained about sixty pounds. My doctor always says I'm far better off 60 pounds overweight than being a smoker. Of course he's just a doctor.

    Here's a tip for those who think anything's good if it makes you thin -- find somebody with TB and see if they'll give you some. They don't call it consumption for nothing.

    When I was overweight my health markers were bad. I have hard data that shows that. Lost the extra weight and now my health markets are good. I have hard data that shows that too.

    And I do respect legitimate scientific research. That's why I don't have a problem with artificial sweeteners.

    When I was overweight I was healthier. I have hard data to show that. Only my health problem is NOT related to weight but a completely unrelated electrolyte and water imbalance problem of sorts. :D
  • missysippy930
    missysippy930 Posts: 2,577 Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    My dad is dying of COPD in front of my eyes. Warnings about smoking are NOT in the same class with artificial sweeteners.

    Definitely not even close. {{{jgnatca}}} I know what you are going through. It’s a horrible thing to see loved ones go through this. So sorry for you💔I lost my mother to emphysema and my oldest sister to lung cancer, both heavy smokers.
  • estherdragonbat
    estherdragonbat Posts: 5,283 Member
    Slowfaster wrote: »
    Rubbish reporting? It says quite clearly in the first article that the study only shows correlation and not causation, that more studies are needed and that it seems to be only certain types of small vessel strokes. It's only meant as something to think about, a heads up for people in certain risk groups.

    There's no rule that says studies shouldn't be reported until there's absolute proof over thousands of people and fifty years. A lot of pregnant American women would have been taking thalidomide if that was required.

    Still, I guess if scientific research doesn't carry as much weight with you as your observations of people you know then, it wont matter to you.

    I do wonder, though, where you people who don't trust health news got the idea that it's unhealthy to be overweight. If anecdotal evidence is what you live by, surely you know people who are both overweight and old.

    You can find science writers on the internet who don't believe there's any real causation between obesity and disease. They believe the diseases are caused by other things, not yet discovered. Who knows? Maybe the reason so many overweight people have diabetes and strokes is that more overweight people drink diet drinks? Or maybe they drank high fructose corn syrup in their baby formula? Or they have more air conditioning in their homes?

    I was a 110 pound woman all my life until I quit smoking and gained about sixty pounds. My doctor always says I'm far better off 60 pounds overweight than being a smoker. Of course he's just a doctor.

    Here's a tip for those who think anything's good if it makes you thin -- find somebody with TB and see if they'll give you some. They don't call it consumption for nothing.

    The only thing that makes you thin is taking is less than you burn. Other things help and/or hinder your progress, but it's the deficit that makes you thin.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Kalex1975 wrote: »
    My local news mentioned this study this morning... usual scaremongering without context. However, I was pleasantly surprised that after the canned report the anchor stressed that the study did not say that it was a "cause" and was only a correlation.

    I heard this on my news too. I hate these kinds of stories. Of course there's a correlation. Overweight people can have medical issues. To reduce calories (ie: not be overweight) you choose diet soda.....duh.
  • Slowfaster
    Slowfaster Posts: 186 Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    My dad is dying of COPD in front of my eyes. Warnings about smoking are NOT in the same class with artificial sweeteners.

    I'm very sorry to hear about your father.

    My brother is dying of throat cancer, caused by HPV. Ten years ago, if anyone had said men could get cancer from having oral sex with their wives, I would have been very skeptical I wouldn't have told them it was rubbish, because I think that's pretty rude, but I would have had my doubts.

    Unfortunately, there are many things that can contribute to fatal diseases like cancer, diabetes and COPD. My brother never smoked and, as a serious chef, always ate high quality food, but he has less than a year to go. If it's the thing that causes your particular cancer then it's just as important as any other risk factor.

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 35,148 Member
    Slowfaster wrote: »
    I find it odd to follow slavishly behind any one particular scientist (or nutritionist) and proclaim everyone else's opinion nonsense or rubbish, when most have impressive credentials. It's not like these studies are done in someone's garage, there's usually a large university funding most health studies. The studies I'm most skeptical of are the ones backed by companies with invested interest, like the makers of artificial sweeteners or tobacco companies.

    I like to read them all, take everything with a grain of salt, and then make my own informed decisions. Although, I admit to giving more credence to Gary Taubes, than most science writers, because he spends many years on research before he comes forward with conclusions.

    For many years, doctors claimed that all the evidence that tobacco was harmful was inconclusive rubbish.

    I think what you're mostly seeing here is the reverse of the bolded: What is being critiqued in this thread is reporting about one study that has itself been critiqued by other scientists, but is being spread (often in a misleading way) in popular media.

    The research linking obesity to various diseases, on the other hand, has been replicated many times in many ways, been assessed via meta analyses not just individual studies, etc. Some of us are saying that our n = 1 results bear this out in our own lives, in terms of improved health markers just from weight loss. That's not the same as equating personal experience to a research study.

    Also: I worked at a major research university for decades. Universities fund relatively little research. A key function within a university is obtaining and maintaining research grants from a variety of sources, including government entities, corporations, and foundations. The major proportion of research funding comes from sources outside the university. It's part of how the research sides of universities stay in business. Surely you don't think student tuition significantly subsidizes research, or that it's subsidized in a big way by the direct state funding for public universities that has declined so significantly in recent decades?
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Slowfaster wrote: »
    I find it odd to follow slavishly behind any one particular scientist (or nutritionist) and proclaim everyone else's opinion nonsense or rubbish, when most have impressive credentials. It's not like these studies are done in someone's garage, there's usually a large university funding most health studies. The studies I'm most skeptical of are the ones backed by companies with invested interest, like the makers of artificial sweeteners or tobacco companies.

    I like to read them all, take everything with a grain of salt, and then make my own informed decisions. Although, I admit to giving more credence to Gary Taubes, than most science writers, because he spends many years on research before he comes forward with conclusions.

    For many years, doctors claimed that all the evidence that tobacco was harmful was inconclusive rubbish.

    I think what you're mostly seeing here is the reverse of the bolded: What is being critiqued in this thread is reporting about one study that has itself been critiqued by other scientists, but is being spread (often in a misleading way) in popular media.

    The research linking obesity to various diseases, on the other hand, has been replicated many times in many ways, been assessed via meta analyses not just individual studies, etc. Some of us are saying that our n = 1 results bear this out in our own lives, in terms of improved health markers just from weight loss. That's not the same as equating personal experience to a research study.

    Also: I worked at a major research university for decades. Universities fund relatively little research. A key function within a university is obtaining and maintaining research grants from a variety of sources, including government entities, corporations, and foundations. The major proportion of research funding comes from sources outside the university. It's part of how the research sides of universities stay in business. Surely you don't think student tuition significantly subsidizes research, or that it's subsidized in a big way by the direct state funding for public universities that has declined so significantly in recent decades?

    Absolutely. I take my nightly local news as an example; cringe worthy "health" segments. They have to have something to report. They need a teaser....."coming up after the commercial break, the best diet.....blah, blah, blah"

    The so-called "best diet" was an 800 calorie meal replacement plan offered by a certain hospital. Way too little information was provided, I'm sure some people were mislead into thinking this diet could be used by most people.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories