5 ms·
It is practically impossible to conduct a long term health study on something like an artificial sweetener. The only way I can think of to accurately remove en
by mjevans 4y ago
It is practically impossible to conduct a long term health study on something like an artificial sweetener. The only way I can think of to accurately remove environmental noise is to collect extensive records on a _large_ population, and then line up A / B sets where the only major difference between the sets (other exposures similar) are the sweeteners.
With a lot of samples that fulfill that criteria a historic review might be able to identify statistical anomalies towards outcomes (positive or negative) that are common to the matched A and B sides of the set.
I could see an AI administering such a data collection and comparison in an accurate and ethical way; but only the scifi grade strong / true AI.
- Gigachad 4y agoIt's also impossible to do this on almost every other substance we use. I'll focus my energy on avoiding things we know for sure are problematic like refined sugar and get to artificial sweeteners when everything else more important is solved.
- Teever 4y agoWhy not just avoid both?
- eropple 4y agoBecause humans are not automatons and there is value in deriving pleasure from one's lived experiences? This isn't a difficult question.
- n_io 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- themitigating 4y agoIs diabetes pleasurable? Is having a heart attack at 60 pleasurable? You should attempt to balance pleasure that has long term risks associated with it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mlindner 4y ago
- formerly_proven 4y agoThis ("life is about fun, drink a can of coca cola a day") has been brought up multiple times by multiple different people in this comment section and quite frankly it's one of the more bewildering things I've seen on HN, and I have showdead on.
- heavyset_go 4y agoNever once has not drinking soda or sugary drinks or food ever impacted my life negatively. Takes like the ones you're referring to are completely alien to me.
- throwaway290 4y agoThe amount of flagged and downvoted comments that voice similar sentiment in this thread branch seems curious.
- heavyset_go 4y agoYou can live a pleasurable life without eating and drinking unnecessary added sugars. You might even have a higher quality of life by eliminating sources of potential negative health effects.
- throwaway290 4y agoNote how your answer equally works whether the question is "why not avoid extra sugar?", "why not quit smoking?", "why not abstain from drugs?", "why require consent?", etc. There is value in not deriving pleasure just as there is value in deriving pleasure. In fact, I don't really know what you mean by "value", but I would not be at all surprised if deriving personal pleasure were found to be orthogonal even to own satisfaction overall.
- throwaway290 4y agoUpon reflection, I don't even think I share your meaning of "pleasure". Yours appears to be heavily influenced by big corporations's marketing departments. I used to smoke and consume sugar excessively and every time made me feel good, yet I overall better when I don't do those things. There are no ads that show you that, of course.
- n_io 4y agoYou honestly think that refined sugars are more problematic than artificial sweeteners?
- Gigachad 4y agoYes.
- TheGigaChad 4y ago
- n_io 4y ago
- jokowueu 4y agoInstead of attacking people in this manner . Provide sources to prove your point this isn't Facebook .
- dang 4y agoWhoa, you can't break the site guidelines like this - we ban accounts that do that. Would you mind reviewing them and sticking to the rules when posting to HN? We'd appreciate it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: it unfortunately looks like you've been doing this for a long time. It doesn't look like we've warned you before, though, and I don't want to ban you without giving you a chance to correct it. Please do correct it though!
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- BeetleB 4y agoRefined sugars have clearly demonstrated problems. Most artificial sweeteners do not.
- 4y ago
- kevinmchugh 4y agoGenuine question: How was it determined that smoked or processed meat is bad? Could the same processes be applied to non sugar sweeteners?
- spacemanmatt 4y agoYes, that process is statistical modeling and it can be applied to quantify numerous problems.
- gruez 4y ago>It is practically impossible to conduct a long term health study on something like an artificial sweetener. The only way I can think of to accurately remove environmental noise is to collect extensive records on a _large_ population, and then line up A / B sets where the only major difference between the sets (other exposures similar) are the sweeteners. The concern with cohort studies isn't "noise", it's confounders. eg. people who eat smoked meats tend to eat other unhealthy foods, so they live shorter lives, but smoked foods in and of themselves aren't harmful. Having a bigger sample size does nothing to combat this. You can "control" for confounders, but comes with its own problems. Control for too little variables, and you still get confounding, control for too much, and you run into p-hacking territory.