Coke zero

janejellyroll wrote: »

tlpina82 wrote: »

Honestly, i don't care about your opinion. You quoted me and I responded.

But just in case you're curious, try to find out how long this study went on for and see if it qualifies as a "long term"

Oh... and one more thing... The double blind group also signed the release forms.

I'd like to think you understand that was a study of potassium citrate's impact on bone health and not a study of the overall safety of potassium citrate, but I can't tell if you're just determined to respond in bad faith or just really bad at reading.

What do release forms have to do with it? Release forms don't allow researchers to give people unsafe substances in studies of this type. Even if it did (and it doesn't), the researchers wouldn't turn around and describe the substance as safe.

1 - The whole discussion was about long term consumption. This study doesn't qualify.
2 - A Short term study was not about bone health, it was about one specific causation.
3 - The last line of the Abstract reads: Longer term trials with definitive outcomes such as bone density and fracture are needed. That, in other words mean, it helped here, but we don't know what it will do to the body 5 years from now.
4 - There is an extensive list of compounds that were found to not be safe AFTER the research, therefore, the Release forms do apply. They are an Insurance Requirement which all labs conducting research must have.
5 - Just because a substance is described as safe, it does not mean it is free from side effects. Short and Long Term.

I understand it's hard to be told that things you eat or drink everyday may not be good for you, sucks.
I am not trying to offend, nor act in bad faith.

I am just saying that "Safe" has a broad definition in research.
As in... In controlled dietary amounts, potassium prevents muscle cramps, but in large amounts, it can stop your heart.

Did we ever answer the question about context and dosage?


I'm enjoying my dose as we chat.

tlpina82 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

tlpina82 wrote: »

Honestly, i don't care about your opinion. You quoted me and I responded.

But just in case you're curious, try to find out how long this study went on for and see if it qualifies as a "long term"

Oh... and one more thing... The double blind group also signed the release forms.

I'd like to think you understand that was a study of potassium citrate's impact on bone health and not a study of the overall safety of potassium citrate, but I can't tell if you're just determined to respond in bad faith or just really bad at reading.

What do release forms have to do with it? Release forms don't allow researchers to give people unsafe substances in studies of this type. Even if it did (and it doesn't), the researchers wouldn't turn around and describe the substance as safe.

1 - The whole discussion was about long term consumption. This study doesn't qualify.
2 - A Short term study was not about bone health, it was about one specific causation.
3 - The last line of the Abstract reads: Longer term trials with definitive outcomes such as bone density and fracture are needed. That, in other words mean, it helped here, but we don't know what it will do to the body 5 years from now.
4 - There is an extensive list of compounds that were found to not be safe AFTER the research, therefore, the Release forms do apply. They are an Insurance Requirement which all labs conducting research must have.
5 - Just because a substance is described as safe, it does not mean it is free from side effects. Short and Long Term.

I understand it's hard to be told that things you eat or drink everyday may not be good for you, sucks.
I am not trying to offend, nor act in bad faith.

I am just saying that "Safe" has a broad definition in research.
As in... In controlled dietary amounts, potassium prevents muscle cramps, but in large amounts, it can stop your heart.

I'm really sorry that I went over your head and you thought I was trying to have a conversation about bone health instead of the statement that potassium citrate was safe. It wasn't what I was doing and I should have started with more basic information, something that would have caused less confusion for you about what I was attempting to communicate.

This has nothing to do with things being "hard" for me. It might be hard if you had some actual evidence to support your claims and diet soda was something that was important to me. But you keep repeating that something is wrong with potassium citrate while not providing any evidence to support this (just vague threats about what will happen in ten years) -- how could that be hard to hear for any reasonable person who bases their decisions on actual information?

It's like if I kept telling you that using the gear shift in your car was bad for you and that you'd find out what I meant someday. Would you get worried? Well, maybe you would, I don't know. But I have a different standard for worry.

Believe me, nobody is offended by your statements that we'll somehow know what you're talking about in ten years although you can't possibly provide support for your claims now.

As far as you not acting in bad faith, if this is you discussing in good faith, good luck with the rest of your education.

I don't like Coke Zero enough to continue drinking it regularly if I were to see evidence that it would harm me. I am more than capable of comprehending scientific study and research language, as are many regular posters here, some of whom in fact make a living at scientific research and application. I am in fact generally an overly-cautious person, not too difficult to convince something is dangerous.

The "older" sweeteners like saccharine and aspartame have been on the market for decades, with no evidence of a clear link to weight gain or disease. The only reason studies are still being done on them is because of this sort of fear-mongering that gives far more weight to one or two diet surveys or demographic studies than they should be given, while ignoring other uncontrolled variables that don't fit the narrative.

Every month or so a new poster jumps into to one of these threads and cites the same handful of inconclusive or easily arguable research. Every time they end up moving the goalposts and telling us we're too uneducated/addicted/stupid to understand. I will continue to read through all this, looking to see if any new info becomes available, as I am fascinated by this subject. But considering the 60+ years of trying to prove the stuff is dangerous with no luck, I will continue to drink a few diet sodas a week without a second thought.

Now bagged lettuce on the other hand, that stuff'll kill you :drinker: