Everytime I talk to leftists and I mention that I don't drink soda and if I do, I'll take whatever Light variety there is around, they always retort "But the Light varieties are worse for you than regular soda!".
Now I personally don't give a shit, but it smells like bullshit to me. What's the truth? How could anything be worse for you than downing that much sugar in one go?
>>35305276
Depends if you want diabetes or cancer
>>35305284
How much aspartan would I need to consume to get a heigthened risk of cancer?
Pick between diabetes and "light"diabetes and a free cancer with it
>>35305276
Normies still think fake sugars cause cancer.
Fake sugar still ruins your insulin sensitivity for the times when you do ingest real sugar though. I don't touch it myself.
>>35305314
Source? If it's chemically not sugar then I would think it wouldn't effect your pancreas that way at all.
>>35305292
None of the studies so far seem to conclusively prove anything beyond the fact that if you give animals (and by extension, probably humans too) insane amount of Aspartam daily, they run a higher risk of developing cancer.
But we're talking like 4000mg daily for a lab rat.
Yah regular soda is worse for you but it always seems like the people who drink diet soda are the people who have to have like 4 of them daily.
When i get a normal dr pepper or somethin its like a treat. Diet soda is like a water substitute for fat people
Diet soda has zero calories. So does bleach.
>>35305784
>4000mg
Or simply... 4 grams?
Because "natural" sugar has to be better than "unnatural" aspartame, or whatever they use nowadays, because muh logic.
>>35305314
Aspartame doesn't cause an insulin response.
>>35305276
> I talk to leftists
Is that what you call people who don't like getting cancer?
Is that how much this left/right illusion has effected your simple monkey brain?
>>35305276
Leftists? What do you even mean by that?
>>35305945
but it does trigger the body into expecting sugar, so it makes an insulin response, due to the sweet taste in your mouth, making you more prone to eat more.
>>35305952
>>35305953
People who live in la-la land where we don't have to prioritize to make some things better with the resources we have.
It's the same kind of people who'll take a stance like this >>35305943
>is the current year
>drinking the liquid jew
>>35305962
> where we don't have to prioritize to make some things better with the resources we have.
but we have an abundance of resources, and even if we didn't, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
If you really did believe in your stance, as related to sugar/fake sugar debate, you'd drink water, like an adult, instead of falling for the retarded left/right dynamic established by 2 corporations competing for political power to prevent you from voting 3rd party, even though Dems and Repubs are literally the exact same thing and neither gives a shit about fake sugar as long as you drink either one and reduce your life expectancy so they won't have to give you back your social security when you're older.
>>35305276
Physician here. It is bullshit. It is just another excuse for fatties to blame "muh genes". The only study that could argue anything is where people who drank diet soda craved more shit food after compared to regular soda or water where they stopped their cravings. My answer to that? Have some fucking willpower.
>>35305956
That's actually untested broscience.
The only reason I would warn against it is that cutting diet soda and other sugary foods completely out will eventually make all sugary foods disgusting.
If you have self control and won't eat these to begin with, drink what you want.
>>35306012
>In 2006, Dartmouth scientists found that people with diabetes who drank one or more cans of diet soda a day raised their A1C levels by an average of 0.7%, compared to those who didn’t.
>In 2007, the American Heart Association found that those who drank either regular or diet soda had a higher risk of “metabolic syndrome,” which includes diabetes, high blood pressure, high levels of LDL (“bad”) cholesterol, and obesity, compared to nondrinkers. This is just a correlation; it doesn’t show cause, but it’s still interesting.
>In the January 16, 2009 issue of Diabetes Care, a group of analysts reviewing the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis found that “Daily consumption of diet soda was associated with… a 67% greater relative risk of… Type 2 diabetes compared to non-consumption.” They said the increased diabetes was not due to increased weight, although that happened too. “Associations between diet soda consumption and Type 2 diabetes were independent of baseline measures of adiposity or changes in these measures,” they wrote. The data was adjusted for “lifestyle and dietary differences.”
I forgot the American Heart Association runs on bro science.
>>35306035
Yes, and those results don't give any mechanism for diet soda or artificial sugar giving diabetes.
ALL they say is people who drink diet soda are more likely to have it, might as well be writing a sociology paper because we could be talking about how different cultural backgrounds drink diet soda and they also happen to be the fatter ones.
If you drink soda once in a while either one is fine. The amount of carcinogens in diet drinks is negligible unless you drink it all the time. If you want to drink regular soda, a few extra calories or sugar won't hurt, unless you're cutting.
A lot of people are autistic these days.
>>35306063
your addiction and weakness to something as simple as soda is saddening.
No wonder you believe in the left/right illusion. You're weak and can't accept facts that are right in front of you because they disagree with your delicate ego.
>>35305990
>>>/pol/
I'm not here to discuss politics, I just stated an observation. Now fuck off, you have no idea of what my political beliefs are or what my stance is on things.
>>35306092
Dude, you're replying to just some randon anon man.
>>35306092
So you're out of arguments so you're just shitposting now?
I'm not the one with the ego anon.
You don't know how to properly read medical journals and results, like most people, so you just go with the simplistic result that makes you feel better about your position.
Kind of like how the study came out about how meat causes cancer recently, that's not what the study actually proved but of course many people are going vegan now because they can't even read.
Personally my flavored drink of choice is tea.
>>35305276
You drink soda?
How old are you? 12?
>>35305276
>he associates political ideologies with soda drink preference
Woah there lad.
How about you just not be a pussy and exercise some self control. Sodas are shit, quit drinking them all together
>>35306168
Guaranteed he's some underage /pol/ edgelord
>>35306063
Yes, the evidence is inconclusive.
But no, you don't need to explain a mechanism for causation to prove that there is causation.
And the last study was supposedly (I'd like to see the actual study not just the greentext) adjusted, so your second point is not entirely true either. It's still just a correlation though. It might be that people with diabetes tend to drink diet coke, not that diet coke tends to cause diabetes.
>>35306138
>you drink soda how old are you?
>you like cocoa how old are you?
>you like and enjoy things how old are you?
this kind of pretend adults are the worst for fuck's sake, not even the fucking 80 year olds say this shit so why the fuck do you think you're so mature if you don't drink nothing but black coffee
everybody will just think you're an autistic fuck if you spout out shit like that
>>35306183
>But no, you don't need to explain a mechanism for causation to prove that there is causation
You do with people.
You could say this about a couple other sciences but like hell you can say it about people and biology.
I have nothing wrong with someone avoiding something because of studies like this, but don't try to tell others not to do it.
>>35306216
>I have nothing wrong with someone avoiding something because of studies like this, but don't try to tell others not to do it.
I'm not.
>You do with people.
>You could say this about a couple other sciences but like hell you can say it about people and biology.
What do you mean by "people and biology"? As an example, it is not uncommon for drugs to have proven effects and side-effects but the mechanism of action not being entirely clear.
Diet soda doesn't do anything to your insulin, and has been proven so repeatedly, regardless of what type of artificial sweetener . You would have to drink 10 liters of diet soda a day to increase you risk of cancer slightly.
>>35306261
It's just hard to pinpoint dietary affects since people have way too many variables.
Like how people keep going back and forth on cholesterol being good or bad.
I mostly meant with people and biology because other sciences don't have to worry as much about causation.
Like volcanoes and magma plumes, the entire existence of the latter is debated but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter too much, but with biological processes it does.
>>35306308
>It's just hard to pinpoint dietary affects since people have way too many variables.
Totally, but that's also what p-values, large sample sizes, and multiple studies are for. IMO the serious problem starts when people see one or two small studies showing something, and instantly treat it as the absolute truth, when in reality it just calls for further studies.
>>35306380
Yeah, I'm obviously not a biofag (geochem fag) but people should really be forced through a scientific reasoning course so they understand the process and how they get their data and how it is interpreted.
Obviously we can damn near figure out something causes something else with enough studies without a mechanism, but like you I was mostly complaining about people taking a couple studies to heart and thinking they are the absolute truth.
Aspartame is highly tested and while it should be studied further, thinking a couple studies showing correlation of it and diabetes makes it dangerous is dumb, it just means we have to study it more.
