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?
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 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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.
Right. Just illustrating that the article is making false claims not substantiated by the study.0 -
I don't think so. I use Walden Farms almost every day by the way. No bad after taste either (in my opinion), and hasn't hindered any results.0
-
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 agree that is perfectly reasonable. I think that diet drinks are completely harmless however I'm not going to try to argue with someone's individual tastes that they for some reason must drink diet soda. If you find diet soda isn't compatible with your diet or goals then by all means avoid it.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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.
Right. Just illustrating that the article is making false claims not substantiated by the study.
Fair enough but I feel the need to make that correction. The reason is there are lots of people who say "well some studies say this but other studies say the opposite so who knows" when in fact generally speaking its one internet article says this about a study and one internet article says that about a study while the actual studies themselves don't make causative claims at all. Refering to a study saying something that actually some unscientifically trained blogger said while citing a study just reinforces that "you can find a study that claims anything" feel that people refer to when they dismiss science as just another opinion.
Its because their exposure to science has been opinion, opinion not from the actual studies but they didn't read the study...they read an opinion piece from an internet blogger who claimed its what a study said.
Main reason why its so critical to seek out primary sources and not just take someones opinion of them as the same thing as the source itself.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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.
Right. Just illustrating that the article is making false claims not substantiated by the study.
Fair enough but I feel the need to make that correction. The reason is there are lots of people who say "well some studies say this but other studies say the opposite so who knows" when in fact generally speaking its one internet article says this about a study and one internet article says that about a study while the actual studies themselves don't make causative claims at all. Refering to a study saying something that actually some unscientifically trained blogger said while citing a study just reinforces that "you can find a study that claims anything" feel that people refer to when they dismiss science as just another opinion.
Its because their exposure to science has been opinion, opinion not from the actual studies but they didn't read the study...they read an opinion piece from an internet blogger who claimed its what a study said.
Main reason why its so critical to seek out primary sources and not just take someones opinion of them as the same thing as the source itself.
Exactly. You and I completely agree on that point.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »I know there are a lot of people who will say aspartame is safe...but for me it was causing severe leg aches. I try to stay away from them as much as possible. I either go without, substitute with something else (honey, agave, etc.), or use the sugar and just adjust my calories for the day.
Luckily, I have never been big on sweets. We owned a grocery store growing up, but instead of raiding the candy isle, I always wanted a slice of longhorn colby....love cheese!
I'm always surprised at experiences like that. Because aspartame doesn't even leave your digestive tract as aspartame, it gets immediately broken apart into its parts and those parts you ingest in quantities thousands of times higher every single day. How is it supposed to do anything in your legs? Or for the other poster their neurological system?
Honestly, I can't answer your question. I did not major in biology, or get my PhD in biochemistry, so I am ignorant on many of the processes involved in converting chemicals to energy inside a living organism. I DO KNOW that there are these people called DOCTORS who study this stuff, do scientific research, and publish their findings in peer reviewed publications, where others can conduct the same experiments and replicate the findings.
I also know that hydrogen peroxide is H2O2, which is just hydrogen and oxygen. Hell, it's almost water!!! So by your argument, a person can also injest hydrogen peroxide, and since it is broken down in the liver by Catalase into water and an oxygen molecule...neither of which are poisonous...then hydrogen peroxide is not poisonous. Yet we know that Hydrogen Peroxide is POISONOUS to humans, and you CAN DIE from it.
Just because the body can eventually break it down into something that is ok...doesn't mean that it is not dangerous or harmful to the body. Perhaps it's the initial chemical, perhaps it's what is released into the body during the break down process, perhaps it's one of the chemicals left after the breakdown; I don't know. All I do know is my experience with the stuff and SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH that has found aspartame is not benign.
http://www.medicinenet.com/artificial_sweeteners/page8.htm
Logic = 1
Stevencloser = 0
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »I know there are a lot of people who will say aspartame is safe...but for me it was causing severe leg aches. I try to stay away from them as much as possible. I either go without, substitute with something else (honey, agave, etc.), or use the sugar and just adjust my calories for the day.
Luckily, I have never been big on sweets. We owned a grocery store growing up, but instead of raiding the candy isle, I always wanted a slice of longhorn colby....love cheese!
I'm always surprised at experiences like that. Because aspartame doesn't even leave your digestive tract as aspartame, it gets immediately broken apart into its parts and those parts you ingest in quantities thousands of times higher every single day. How is it supposed to do anything in your legs? Or for the other poster their neurological system?
Honestly, I can't answer your question. I did not major in biology, or get my PhD in biochemistry, so I am ignorant on many of the processes involved in converting chemicals to energy inside a living organism. I DO KNOW that there are these people called DOCTORS who study this stuff, do scientific research, and publish their findings in peer reviewed publications, where others can conduct the same experiments and replicate the findings.
I also know that hydrogen peroxide is H2O2, which is just hydrogen and oxygen. Hell, it's almost water!!! So by your argument, a person can also injest hydrogen peroxide, and since it is broken down in the liver by Catalase into water and an oxygen molecule...neither of which are poisonous...then hydrogen peroxide is not poisonous. Yet we know that Hydrogen Peroxide is POISONOUS to humans, and you CAN DIE from it.
Just because the body can eventually break it down into something that is ok...doesn't mean that it is not dangerous or harmful to the body. Perhaps it's the initial chemical, perhaps it's what is released into the body during the break down process, perhaps it's one of the chemicals left after the breakdown; I don't know. All I do know is my experience with the stuff and SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH that has found aspartame is not benign.
http://www.medicinenet.com/artificial_sweeteners/page8.htm
Logic = 1
Stevencloser = 0
@jondspen
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p14 -
stevencloser wrote: »I know there are a lot of people who will say aspartame is safe...but for me it was causing severe leg aches. I try to stay away from them as much as possible. I either go without, substitute with something else (honey, agave, etc.), or use the sugar and just adjust my calories for the day.
Luckily, I have never been big on sweets. We owned a grocery store growing up, but instead of raiding the candy isle, I always wanted a slice of longhorn colby....love cheese!
I'm always surprised at experiences like that. Because aspartame doesn't even leave your digestive tract as aspartame, it gets immediately broken apart into its parts and those parts you ingest in quantities thousands of times higher every single day. How is it supposed to do anything in your legs? Or for the other poster their neurological system?
Honestly, I can't answer your question. I did not major in biology, or get my PhD in biochemistry, so I am ignorant on many of the processes involved in converting chemicals to energy inside a living organism. I DO KNOW that there are these people called DOCTORS who study this stuff, do scientific research, and publish their findings in peer reviewed publications, where others can conduct the same experiments and replicate the findings.
I also know that hydrogen peroxide is H2O2, which is just hydrogen and oxygen. Hell, it's almost water!!! So by your argument, a person can also injest hydrogen peroxide, and since it is broken down in the liver by Catalase into water and an oxygen molecule...neither of which are poisonous...then hydrogen peroxide is not poisonous. Yet we know that Hydrogen Peroxide is POISONOUS to humans, and you CAN DIE from it.
Just because the body can eventually break it down into something that is ok...doesn't mean that it is not dangerous or harmful to the body. Perhaps it's the initial chemical, perhaps it's what is released into the body during the break down process, perhaps it's one of the chemicals left after the breakdown; I don't know. All I do know is my experience with the stuff and SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH that has found aspartame is not benign.
http://www.medicinenet.com/artificial_sweeteners/page8.htm
Logic = 1
Stevencloser = 0
You talk about scientific evidence and then you link to a dot.com website that has blog articles written by who knows who that fail to cite anything to back up what they are saying. In this case written by a dietician as an opinion piece. Here is a claim made early in the article
"One hundred percent of the research performed by the company who makes aspartame confirmed aspartame's safety, whereas 92% of the independently funded research found problems with consuming aspartame. Other reports of federal employees working for the companies responsible for the testing and distribution of aspartame are cited on all of the sites and books opposing the use of aspartame."
Which is an incredible claim to make and something that they should definately back up with some citations...do that do that? No, of course they don't. They don't source this claim and they don't provide citations to what studies they are even refering to. This is someone's internet blog that was put up for profit, this is not a scientific resource at all. It cites nothing, it makes claims but does not back any of them up with anything other than more claims. The evidence that it is dangerous? The fact that people have written books about it being dangerous is the evidence that is given.
The current scientific consensus is that aspartame is not toxic or dangerous to humans at all.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671
Your claims about hydrogen peroxide are a total nonsequitar. hydrogen peroxide isn't metabolized, its is a reactive oxygen species that has to get dealt with by enzymes such as catylase that deal with reactive oxygen species. Reactive oxygen species in and of themselves can cause damage to macromolecules such as DNA by reactiong with them chemically, they are dangerous and we know that. It enters the body as an oxygen radical, it doesn't have to be metabolised to become dangerous it is dangerous as it is which in and of itself causes damage so yes, of course it is toxic. Aspartame isn't some reactive species that is inheriently damaging...its a methylated dipeptide...there is nothing about that that is inheriently dangerous. So the only way you could claim it is dangerous is to say the body somehow does something to it to convert it to something that IS dangerous at which point you'd have to back that claim up by some sort of mechanistic explanation as to how followed by evidence.
Hydrogen peroxide is, like other peroxides, a reactive oxygen species that can interact with hydrocarbons and break bonds thus causing damage to important molecules such as proteins, DNA and RNA. Yes enzymes like catylase exist to help mitigate this by sequestering and dealing with peroxides but they just mitigate the damage, they don't prevent it entirely and the more peroxides your exposed to the greater the damage will be...we understand that. What is the mechanism of damage caused by aspartame exactly...can you walk me through that?17 -
Honestly, I can't answer your question. I did not major in biology, or get my PhD in biochemistry, so I am ignorant on many of the processes involved in converting chemicals to energy inside a living organism. I DO KNOW that there are these people called DOCTORS who study this stuff, do scientific research, and publish their findings in peer reviewed publications, where others can conduct the same experiments and replicate the findings.
Protip before you answer Aaron's post above: He IS one of those people who studies this stuff, does scientific research and publishes his findings in peer-reviewed publications. He's a molecular biologist. Choose your response carefully, you may be outgunned in this battle.
Science = 1
Jondspen = 08 -
stevencloser wrote: »I know there are a lot of people who will say aspartame is safe...but for me it was causing severe leg aches. I try to stay away from them as much as possible. I either go without, substitute with something else (honey, agave, etc.), or use the sugar and just adjust my calories for the day.
Luckily, I have never been big on sweets. We owned a grocery store growing up, but instead of raiding the candy isle, I always wanted a slice of longhorn colby....love cheese!
I'm always surprised at experiences like that. Because aspartame doesn't even leave your digestive tract as aspartame, it gets immediately broken apart into its parts and those parts you ingest in quantities thousands of times higher every single day. How is it supposed to do anything in your legs? Or for the other poster their neurological system?
Honestly, I can't answer your question. I did not major in biology, or get my PhD in biochemistry, so I am ignorant on many of the processes involved in converting chemicals to energy inside a living organism. I DO KNOW that there are these people called DOCTORS who study this stuff, do scientific research, and publish their findings in peer reviewed publications, where others can conduct the same experiments and replicate the findings.
I also know that hydrogen peroxide is H2O2, which is just hydrogen and oxygen. Hell, it's almost water!!! So by your argument, a person can also injest hydrogen peroxide, and since it is broken down in the liver by Catalase into water and an oxygen molecule...neither of which are poisonous...then hydrogen peroxide is not poisonous. Yet we know that Hydrogen Peroxide is POISONOUS to humans, and you CAN DIE from it.
Just because the body can eventually break it down into something that is ok...doesn't mean that it is not dangerous or harmful to the body. Perhaps it's the initial chemical, perhaps it's what is released into the body during the break down process, perhaps it's one of the chemicals left after the breakdown; I don't know. All I do know is my experience with the stuff and SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH that has found aspartame is not benign.
http://www.medicinenet.com/artificial_sweeteners/page8.htm
Logic = 1
Stevencloser = 0
But scientific research HAS shown it to be benign.
And the link you gave is not to a scientific peer reviewed study at all - you know, as you said in your post you base your information on
In fact the only con in your link is that aspartame is dangerous for people with PKU disease - well, yes, we all know that.
PKU is a rare genetic disease in which people have to follow an extremely strict diet from infancy - relevance to vast majority of population is Nil.
Logic Fail.
8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions