3 ms·

Now that's surprising. I would have guessed artificial sweeteners would have had more cancerous effects than "natural" sugars, but I guess that's just a logica

by umvi 7y ago

Now that's surprising. I would have guessed artificial sweeteners would have had more cancerous effects than "natural" sugars, but I guess that's just a logical fallicy where I assume lab synthesized chemicals are automatically worse for your body than plant synthesized chemicals.

intopieces 7y ago
There is not enough data in this study to conclude either way about artificial sweeteners
- sedatk 7y ago
  It’s literally in the conclusion section.
  - StrangeDoctor 7y ago
    It wasn’t though. They state they didn’t find an association but take it with a grain of salt due to low statistical power. Therefore, we shouldn’t really say either way. >The consumption of artificially sweetened beverages was not associated with a risk of cancer, but statistical power was probably limited owing to a relatively low consumption in this sample.
x2f10 7y ago
How long have artificial sweeteners been on the market? How many people only drink artificially sweetened drinks?
- mrkstu 7y ago
  I'm type II and other than the odd fruit juice, only drink artificially sweetened drinks. More and more stevia sweetened drinks recently, which I guess doesn't qualify as artificial though.
QuickToBan 7y ago
Artificially sweetened drinks are extremely bad. Refer to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30802187 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30802187
- kabwj 7y ago
  >postmenopausal US women
- kyberias 7y ago
  Some caution needs to be used when interpreting these results. The ASB intake was self-reported with a lot of potential errors. The authors state: "Additionally, women with high intakes of ASB of all types may have differed systematically in many ways from women with little or no intake, most especially since they were more likely to be obese and have a higher energy intake."
- w0utert 7y ago
  I quickly scanned the study you linked and its conclusions, but it doesn't seem to draw any reliable conclusions at all. It specifically mentions the results need to be reproduced, are purely observational, depended on self-reported intake quantities, and did not correct for possible factors that correlate with intake of artificial sweeteners (such as obesity). Last but not least the test group was purely women in a relatively narrow age range above 50. I always get somewhat triggered by people claiming artificial sweeteners are provably bad, because so far I have not seen a single study that conclusively claims this without a long list of reservations. All while the health effects of artificial sweeteners are one of the most researched topics in nutritional science. I don't have a stake in this game at all (I rarely eat/drink things that have artificial sweeteners, or actual sugar, for that matter), but the fact that after decades of research there still is no smoking gun tells me the supposed adverse health effects of artificial sweeteners are way overblown.
meremortals 7y ago
The "... but it's natural" argument is insane. "Natural" poison Ivy, sharks, and fire vs "unnatural" antibiotics, chemotherapy, insulin shots.
- sjg007 7y ago
  Some people are bad at logical reasoning.

by umvi 7y ago

intopieces 7y ago

There is not enough data in this study to conclude either way about artificial sweeteners

sedatk 7y ago
It’s literally in the conclusion section.
- StrangeDoctor 7y ago
  It wasn’t though. They state they didn’t find an association but take it with a grain of salt due to low statistical power. Therefore, we shouldn’t really say either way. >The consumption of artificially sweetened beverages was not associated with a risk of cancer, but statistical power was probably limited owing to a relatively low consumption in this sample.

x2f10 7y ago

How long have artificial sweeteners been on the market? How many people only drink artificially sweetened drinks?

mrkstu 7y ago
I'm type II and other than the odd fruit juice, only drink artificially sweetened drinks. More and more stevia sweetened drinks recently, which I guess doesn't qualify as artificial though.

QuickToBan 7y ago

Artificially sweetened drinks are extremely bad. Refer to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30802187 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30802187

kabwj 7y ago
>postmenopausal US women
kyberias 7y ago
Some caution needs to be used when interpreting these results. The ASB intake was self-reported with a lot of potential errors. The authors state: "Additionally, women with high intakes of ASB of all types may have differed systematically in many ways from women with little or no intake, most especially since they were more likely to be obese and have a higher energy intake."
w0utert 7y ago
I quickly scanned the study you linked and its conclusions, but it doesn't seem to draw any reliable conclusions at all. It specifically mentions the results need to be reproduced, are purely observational, depended on self-reported intake quantities, and did not correct for possible factors that correlate with intake of artificial sweeteners (such as obesity). Last but not least the test group was purely women in a relatively narrow age range above 50. I always get somewhat triggered by people claiming artificial sweeteners are provably bad, because so far I have not seen a single study that conclusively claims this without a long list of reservations. All while the health effects of artificial sweeteners are one of the most researched topics in nutritional science. I don't have a stake in this game at all (I rarely eat/drink things that have artificial sweeteners, or actual sugar, for that matter), but the fact that after decades of research there still is no smoking gun tells me the supposed adverse health effects of artificial sweeteners are way overblown.

meremortals 7y ago

The "... but it's natural" argument is insane. "Natural" poison Ivy, sharks, and fire vs "unnatural" antibiotics, chemotherapy, insulin shots.

sjg007 7y ago
Some people are bad at logical reasoning.