8 ms·
Interesting, so Red Bull is actually healthy?
by _hyn3 3y ago
Interesting, so Red Bull is actually healthy?
- Grazester 3y agoWas actually needing some caffeine to up me toda. I debated having a sugar free Red Bull but even the sugar free ones are not great for you due to the sucralose
- Blackthorn 3y agoI know I won't change anyone's already set opinions here, but for anyone reading this and not sure what is being discussed: there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose.
- blips 3y agolook here bud, they confirmed it in a pitri dish. I think we can proceed to throw all the food in my house out now
- psychphysic 3y agoI personally find what poses a risk to my health (actually my waist line) is if I have one sugar free drink (sweetened) I just crave more. I don't know if the sugar mitigates some effect, or it's purely driven by psychology and me unconsciously feeling unrestricted in consuming sugar free drinks. But I see a clear effect in me. I even tried coke life when it existed to see if I managed it better but it was too short lived to know.
- valianteffort 3y agoYes your blood sugar is regulated by insulin
- c22 3y agoFor anyone reading this looking for a more nuanced take: [0]. [0]: https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/sucralose-emerging-science-reveals-health-risks/ https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/sucralose-emerging-science-reve...
- ohgodplsno 3y agoThere might be. A research shows it is genotoxic at times. https://healthnews.com/news/chemical-in-artificial-sweetener-may-damage-dna/ https://healthnews.com/news/chemical-in-artificial-sweetener...
- Fauntleroy 3y agoI have extremely strong anecdotal evidence that sucralose is toxic to my gut fauna. Two years of suffering are enough to convince me, but I'm hopeful to see the research that confirms it sooner than later.
- Blackthorn 3y agoHey, if you've found it's bad for you, then by all means don't consume it! The nice thing about sweeteners, unlike a lot of other food stuff, is that there's a lot of options out there.
- Fauntleroy 3y agoYes, I know this. However you're making the blanket statement that it's harmless, and I simply have to push back on that. If it affected me this negatively, it's surely causing harm to others.
- Blackthorn 3y agoI mean my wife is allergic to lactose, but I wouldn't say lactose is anything but generally harmless.
- giardini 3y ago"...but I wouldn't say lactose is anything but generally harmless." Obviously you've never lain (I cannot call it sleep) with a lactose-intolerant SO after an evening of milk-laden feasting (loves Indian desserts which, with Indian meal included, ratchets up the noxious undercover methane emissions by about 10,000%). The dog even moved out of the bedroom!8-((
- heisenbit 3y agoThis is actually a good point: The fact that it does not get metabolized by the body does not mean it does not get metabolized by some valuable bacterial symbionts.
- baremetal 3y agoSucralose found in common sweetener damages DNA, may cause cancer [1] [1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/sucralose-found-in-common-sweetener-damages-dna-may-cause-cancer https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/sucralose-found-in...
- inciampati 3y agoI've recently been wondering if sucralose isn't the agent driving a recent increase in cancer cases among young people. Putting lots of chlorine atoms in your sugar is not a good idea. We got my mom to stop using it when she developed some bad rashes on her hands. Turns out, sucralose was the cause.
- hombre_fatal 3y agoReality: At the very highest concentrations of the sucralose compound tested in this study, using cells in petri dishes, one marker of gene damage was slightly elevated
- baremetal 3y agoIn reality, I try to minimize my exposure to known carcinogens. This one is quite avoidable.
- hombre_fatal 3y agoIf your epistemic standard is based on what happens to a single marker of cells in a petri dish at concentrated levels of exposure, then the list of foods you should avoid is endless. You couldn't even eat meat nor all sorts of vegetables even though those foods improve human health outcomes in clinical trials. For example, that experiment can't even capture the most basic hormetic effect.
- snapcaster 3y agoYou don't know this! I don't take issue with you consuming it but you absolutely shouldn't have confidence that there aren't negative effects from consuming something humans never had to adapt to. Just say "we don't know of anything wrong with consuming it"
- extasia 3y ago"snapcaster, flashback counterspell" "gg"
- Blackthorn 3y agoThese artificial sweeteners are among the most studied chemicals in the world. At some point you've gotta say okay, they're fine, or okay, they're not.
- throwaway290 3y agoIf artificial sweeteners are so well studied as you claim then why sucralose was found to damage DNA while erythritol was linked to heart attacks in studies just this year? Sugar or nothing for me personally.
- detrites 3y agoStudied by whom for what goal? They're also some of the most astutely-avoided substances, with various products proudly proclaiming they don't contain them. Such markets could well potentially exist due to user experience trumping studies.
- Blackthorn 3y agoSo I take it you're on the "okay, they're not" side of that divide? I mean, how many more decades does one need to really make a decision on these?
- xcv123 3y agoThere are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-substitute-may-damage-your-dna-and-increase-your-cancer-risk https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-sub...
- Eumenes 3y agohttps://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cancer-warning-over-cell-destroying-30144208 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cancer-warning-over...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- topicseed 3y agoWhat's wrong with sucralose?
- alamortsubite 3y agoThere's recent research showing it's genotoxic in even moderate quantities: https://news.ncsu.edu/2023/05/genotoxic-chemical-in-sweetener/ https://news.ncsu.edu/2023/05/genotoxic-chemical-in-sweetene...
- inciampati 3y agoPutting chlorine in sugars that get metabolized seems to be a very bad idea because it leads to some very radical compounds getting loose in the cell.
- slashdev 3y agoSucralose isn’t metabolized. The body excretes it in the same quantity you take in. Also table salt is half chlorine and not a health issue (at least not because it contains chlorine). The body is complex.
- lostmsu 3y agoAnecdata: a heavy (2 x 8oz cans/day) consumer of Red Bull I got sleep problems starting around 34. Can't be sure they are related, but Red Bull is definitely the main suspect.
- WastingMyTime89 3y agoThat’s a high amount of sugar. That by itself can’t be too good.
- ChuckNorris89 3y agoI doubt the sugar alone is to blame and not the high caffeine content.
- WastingMyTime89 3y agoThere is not that much caffeine in Red Bull surprisingly. It’s a lot compared to a soda but it pales if you compare it to coffee: it’s approximately half as much as what’s in an espresso. Caffeine-wise, drinking two cans should be fine (provided you don’t drink a ton of other caffeinated beverages). Honestly my first guess here is that we are in the presence of a confounding variable. I can somewhat imagine the life style which goes with having to drink two cans of Red Bull everyday. The cause of the sleep problems starting at the beginning of early middle age might actually be found here.
- jstarfish 3y agoI don't think it's anything confounding; it's likely just age. Old people are really sensitive about drinking caffeinated coffee late in the day for reasons I never understood until my mid-30s, where suddenly I had to watch soda intake after 6pm or I'd get insomnia. (Also, use phone/monitor night mode and don't do anything intense within 1hr of bed-- no gaming, no exercise, no forums, no outrage-inducing news, etc. Wind down with something boring.)
- lostmsu 3y ago