5 ms·

I like how all the people who benefit from artificial sweeteners are refuting something which the study doesn't claim. For example: "The International Sweete

by biot 12y ago

I like how all the people who benefit from artificial sweeteners are refuting something which the study doesn't claim. For example: "The International Sweeteners Association (ISA) says it strongly refutes the claims made in the study: 'There is a broad body of scientific evidence which clearly demonstrates that low-calorie sweeteners are not associated with an increased risk of obesity and diabetes as they do not have an effect on appetite, blood glucose levels or weight gain.'" It's true that artificial sweeteners have no immediate effect on appetite, blood glucose levels, nor weight gain. None of these are claims made by the study. Everyone is refuting the immediate effects of artificial sweeteners. The study claims that after consuming artificial sweeteners, if you then consume something naturally sweet, the prior consumption of an artificial sweetener alters your glucose tolerance levels. It's the equivalent of saying that removing all the trees from around rivers has no effect on fish population because clearly fish don't live in trees. But it's the secondary effects of this which such a statement ignores: the increase in soil erosion impacting water quality, change in water temperature due to having more direct sunlight, and so on. Also: "'Decades of clinical research shows that low-calorie sweeteners have been found to aid weight-control when part of an overall healthy diet, and assist with diabetes management,' says Gavin Partington of the British Soft Drinks Association." This has little meaning without having a reference point to compare the results to. If the study is correct, take one group of people who use diet soft drinks with an overall healthy diet and compare it to another group of people who consume the same overall healthy diet but drink water instead of diet soft drinks, and the group that drinks water should have a better glucose tolerance response than the diet soft drink group.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
azakai 12y ago
> It's true that artificial sweeteners have no immediate effect on appetite Yes, but the quote you give doesn't mention immediate effects in particular. And to the contrary, they mention things like obesity and diabetes which are not immediate effects. To me, it sounds like they are not saying what you say they are.
- curun1r 12y ago
  They are saying what they always say whenever anyone questions the safety/healthiness of their products. Their response is the equivalent of a form letter. It's akin to the statements that the tobacco companies made before congress, well-rehearsed and carefully worded to be deceiving. It's why they always seem to not address the specifics of what the scientific study actually found...because they intentionally aren't addressing it. It's part of their larger playbook for continuing to poison the US population. That same playbook also has strategies for when regulation is proposed (increase campaign contributions, stress individual freedom to choose and responsibility and begin self-imposed reforms) and they've been doing it ever since the McGovern report suggested that our food might be harmful to our health. Thus far, they've gotten away with it every single time.
- biot 12y ago
  The mentions of obesity and diabetes are written as direct causal relationships. To rearrange their quote without changing the meaning: "because low-calorie sweeteners do not have an effect on appetite, blood glucose levels or weight gain, they are not associated with an increased risk of obesity and diabetes" Essentially, this says "if (no effect) then (no risk caused by effects)". As long as it's true that low-calorie sweeteners themselves don't have an effect on appetite, blood glucose levels, or weight gain then they're free to make the above implication. However, the statement is only a partial truth and has no bearing on the study under discussion. If they wanted to directly respond to the study, they wouldn't keep quoting old studies which didn't attempt to investigate the results of the new research; they should instead say that they will study it and attempt to replicate the results, then issue a statement once they've understood the full implications. Of course, that wouldn't be a strong defensive statement of their vested interest so they of course can't say that.
function_seven 12y ago
You just hit one of my pet peeves. "...when part of a healthy diet". Only cigarettes fail that test as far as I can tell. Eating deep-fried Twinkies and a 32oz Mountain Dew is not bad for you, when done as part of an overall healthy diet.
- aaron695 12y ago
  Pet peeves, falling for anti-cigarette propaganda. In moderation with a healthy diet they are as fine as Twinkies and 32oz Mountain Dew. Like Mountain Dew they are abused so perhaps abstinence is best, depends on personal will power.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Right, by definition, consuming any food is not bad for you, when done as part of an overall healthy diet -- any overall diet in which the food was bad for you would not, ipso facto, be a healthy diet when that food was included. The claim would only begin to be meaningful if instead of "when part of a healthy diet" it was "when included in an otherwise healthy diet".
  - graeme 12y ago
    Not necessarily. You could smoke one cigarette now, and you would be less healthy. But if you never smoked again, you would not have transitioned to unhealthy The first term is relative, the second absolute. If the diet is overall healthy, it's possible it has some bad food. It's less healthy than if it didn't, but not unhealthy.
    - epaladin 12y ago
      Which just made me wonder if it's possible to train a hidden markov model for detecting that. Trigger a flag that says "wowzers, now you're in unhealthy state territory". Otherwise it's real hard to tell if occasional engagements with unhealthy behaviors are having an impact on health overall. I imagine we'll get to the point of being able to do this sort of thing in about five years.
aragot 12y ago
For each quote, I wondered whether the journalist selected the worst part to make them look arrogant/ignorant. Later in the article there are more reasonable answers they could have used, saying there has been research (and funds?) allocated to this topic and they had found nothing, saying that there are several levels of peer review until a scientific study acquires the credit of trust, that further research and counter-studies are necessary before anything is confirmed, that based on the current knowledge there is nothing to worry about. The obsession of dodging the issue of the PR people quoted in the article raised red flags all around my mind.

by biot 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

azakai 12y ago

> It's true that artificial sweeteners have no immediate effect on appetite Yes, but the quote you give doesn't mention immediate effects in particular. And to the contrary, they mention things like obesity and diabetes which are not immediate effects. To me, it sounds like they are not saying what you say they are.

curun1r 12y ago
They are saying what they always say whenever anyone questions the safety/healthiness of their products. Their response is the equivalent of a form letter. It's akin to the statements that the tobacco companies made before congress, well-rehearsed and carefully worded to be deceiving. It's why they always seem to not address the specifics of what the scientific study actually found...because they intentionally aren't addressing it. It's part of their larger playbook for continuing to poison the US population. That same playbook also has strategies for when regulation is proposed (increase campaign contributions, stress individual freedom to choose and responsibility and begin self-imposed reforms) and they've been doing it ever since the McGovern report suggested that our food might be harmful to our health. Thus far, they've gotten away with it every single time.
biot 12y ago
The mentions of obesity and diabetes are written as direct causal relationships. To rearrange their quote without changing the meaning: "because low-calorie sweeteners do not have an effect on appetite, blood glucose levels or weight gain, they are not associated with an increased risk of obesity and diabetes" Essentially, this says "if (no effect) then (no risk caused by effects)". As long as it's true that low-calorie sweeteners themselves don't have an effect on appetite, blood glucose levels, or weight gain then they're free to make the above implication. However, the statement is only a partial truth and has no bearing on the study under discussion. If they wanted to directly respond to the study, they wouldn't keep quoting old studies which didn't attempt to investigate the results of the new research; they should instead say that they will study it and attempt to replicate the results, then issue a statement once they've understood the full implications. Of course, that wouldn't be a strong defensive statement of their vested interest so they of course can't say that.

function_seven 12y ago

You just hit one of my pet peeves. "...when part of a healthy diet". Only cigarettes fail that test as far as I can tell. Eating deep-fried Twinkies and a 32oz Mountain Dew is not bad for you, when done as part of an overall healthy diet.

aaron695 12y ago
Pet peeves, falling for anti-cigarette propaganda. In moderation with a healthy diet they are as fine as Twinkies and 32oz Mountain Dew. Like Mountain Dew they are abused so perhaps abstinence is best, depends on personal will power.
dragonwriter 12y ago
Right, by definition, consuming any food is not bad for you, when done as part of an overall healthy diet -- any overall diet in which the food was bad for you would not, ipso facto, be a healthy diet when that food was included. The claim would only begin to be meaningful if instead of "when part of a healthy diet" it was "when included in an otherwise healthy diet".
- graeme 12y ago
  Not necessarily. You could smoke one cigarette now, and you would be less healthy. But if you never smoked again, you would not have transitioned to unhealthy The first term is relative, the second absolute. If the diet is overall healthy, it's possible it has some bad food. It's less healthy than if it didn't, but not unhealthy.
  - epaladin 12y ago
    Which just made me wonder if it's possible to train a hidden markov model for detecting that. Trigger a flag that says "wowzers, now you're in unhealthy state territory". Otherwise it's real hard to tell if occasional engagements with unhealthy behaviors are having an impact on health overall. I imagine we'll get to the point of being able to do this sort of thing in about five years.

aragot 12y ago

For each quote, I wondered whether the journalist selected the worst part to make them look arrogant/ignorant. Later in the article there are more reasonable answers they could have used, saying there has been research (and funds?) allocated to this topic and they had found nothing, saying that there are several levels of peer review until a scientific study acquires the credit of trust, that further research and counter-studies are necessary before anything is confirmed, that based on the current knowledge there is nothing to worry about. The obsession of dodging the issue of the PR people quoted in the article raised red flags all around my mind.