"Yet another study confirms what people have been saying for ages: Stop drinking diet soda. Like, right now. Drinking just one 12-ounce can of an artificially sweetened fizzy drink per week can increase your risk of Type 2 diabetes by 33 percent, French researchers found. And given that most people don't stop at a single weekly serving, your real risk for diabetes could actually be much higher.Diet Soda May Increase Risk of DepressionThe study, which was announced Thursday and will be published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, was conducted by France's National Institute of Health and Medical Research and covered 66,118 middle-aged women whose dietary habits and health were tracked from 1993 to 2007.Diet Soda May Be Making You FatThe results were unexpected. Though it's well-known that people who consume a lot of sugar are more likely to develop diabetes, the researchers found that participants who drank "light" or "diet" soft drinks had a higher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes than those who drank regular, sugar-filled sodas. Those who drank 100 percent natural squeezed fruit juices instead had no additional risk.Women who choose artificially flavored soft drinks usually drink twice as many of them as women who choose regular soda or juice—2.8 glasses per week compared to 1.6 glasses. "Yet when an equal quantity is consumed, the risk of contracting diabetes is higher for 'light' or 'diet' drinks than for 'non-light' or 'non-diet' drinks," the researchers, epidemiologists Francoise Clavel-Chapelon and Guy Fagherazzi, said in a statement. Women who drank up to 500 milliliters (about 12 ounces) of artificially sweetened beverages per week were 33 percent more likely to develop the disease, and women who drank about 600 milliliters (about 20 ounces) per week had a 66 percent increase in risk."http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/study-diet-soda-increa...
Studies like this are kind of tough. WOmen who are overweight tend to consume the bulk of the diet soda. So folks looking at all kinds of health problems creeping up on them already are going to be over represented grossly in one group. Unless it is a massive controlled study, it really does not say much. Now I think that diet soda is a pretty bad idea, I'll stick to that. But studies like this? Usually lean toward the meaningless.
I would not be alarmed about what most medical studies say. In general these studies do an extremely poor job of identifying and rooting out autocorrelations and it is these autocorrelations that are frequently the most likely culprit. A large set of prime examples concerns dying from some lifestyle habit associated with being poor. Poor people have less access to medical care, their medical issues get diagnosed later, they gett poorer treatment once they are diagnosed. Most things associated with being poor will be associated with dying rather the thing caused it or not.In the case of diet soda making you fat, giving you diabetes, most probably a disproportionate share of those drinking diet soda are already fat and consequently already on the road to diabetes. This is not to say that the diet soda can not contribute to this. But when you read any of these studies, it is important to read to the part where they adjust for the obvious autocorrelations. Frequently you can read all the way through and never get to that part as it is not there. Many of these studies are worth about as much as a bucket of warm pee.V.
I prefer the regular stuff...I'm not concerned with calories as much as I am with chemicals and fat. I prefer "Mexican Coke" which has real sugar and not corn syrup (or something like that).I don't like fake sugar...rather have extra natural calories than zero calorie chemicals.
Most of the sugar substitute studies apper to have merit, but with much less generality than usually applied. In other words, there are a lot of sugar substitutes. Sugar alcohols are sugars that we digest very, very poorly so they pass few calories through the gut to the bloodstream, but they are indeed sugars. Stevia is a root. The controversial Aspartame is a methyl ester of phenylalanine dipeptide, etc., etc. Genaralizing about many chemically different substances as though they're the same is dumb. Hell, one study found that Stevia increased insulin sensitivity, which would make it good for Type II diabetics, but only an idiot would extend that finding (which still requires replication) to sugar alcohols or whatever.Personally, I like Stevia (which by the way isn't used in any diet sodas AFAIK), but my advice to others is always to enjoy sugar if they want and their health permits, but don't make it a friggin' food group. Moderation in all things.
Most of the sugar substitute studies apper to have meritI should be much more careful with my words. Merit with regard to what? Earlier posts about spurrious correlation are absolutely reasonable. My remark about merit was really addressed to correlation, not causation, and my caution was that different sweeteners are apt to have very different chemical andbiological impacts, so lumping them together is very sloppy (like my comment about merit).
I used to drink 7 diet coke's per week. Read about all the crap that it can cause.Now, I drink 1-2 regular Cherry Coke's per week.Sugary and bad yes. But I think that 2 regular cokes aren't as bad for me as 7 diet cokes.JediG
Good advice Buff. Also, pay attention to some of the massive qualities of sodium in diet products. Many people have found diet sodas make them fat.I used to love Pepsi, now rarely drink any soft drink except Fresca, and not much of that either. I think Milk is the most unhealthy drink of all, and recommend people drink beer.
WOmen who are overweight tend to consume the bulk of the diet soda.Hypothesis courtesy of the Lowstudent Institute of Studies in Gut Instinct, presumably based on a "massive" sample size of (I'm guessing) hundreds of women with absolutely no scientific controls whatsoever. Never the less, you go on to question the relevance of the scientific study:Unless it is a massive controlled study, it really does not say much.If tracking 66,000 women over 14 years doesn't count as a "massive controlled study" then I don't know what does. To some extent one can point to the fact that it passed muster for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. But, I suppose, for someone who's generally uncomfortable with anything scientific I guess it's hard to absorb when your gut tells you "more fat people drink diet soda because they must all be on a diet or something."Your post just caught my attention with the extent to which it demonstrates how some people simply can't be bothered with anything "sciencey" if it doesn't square up with their personal opinions, however worthless and ill-informed those opinions may be.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rat