Slashdot Mirror
Diet Sodas May Be Tied To Stroke, Dementia Risk (cnn.com)
Gulping down an artificially sweetened beverage not only may be associated with health risks for your body, but also possibly your brain, a new study suggests. From a report: Artificially sweetened drinks, such as diet sodas, were tied to a higher risk of stroke and dementia in the study, which published in the American Heart Association's journal Stroke on Thursday. The study sheds light only on an association, as the researchers were unable to determine an actual cause-and-effect relationship between sipping artificially sweetened drinks and an increased risk for stroke and dementia. Therefore, some experts caution that the findings should be interpreted carefully. No connection was found between those health risks and other sugary beverages, such as sugar-sweetened sodas, fruit juice and fruit drinks.
We goofed
the researchers were unable to determine an actual cause-and-effect relationship between sipping artificially sweetened drinks and an increased risk for stroke and dementia
In other words, the headline is worthless click-bait. This is not a "study", it's a statistical analysis of a database set that proves nothing at all by itself.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
And the researchers acknowledge that by saying they don't have a mechanism. Once again, a link has been found. Whether that link turns to be some sort of co-factor, and there is no direct link between diet pop and strokes and dementia, is something further research will determine.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's bad enough having to wade through all of the uneducated mouthbreathers and their "HEALTH GOODNESS WELLNESS NOW!!11" anti-science garbage sites.
Do we really need to see more garbage science on /.?
If you want to know the risks of aspartame (spoiler alert: there are none unless you've been diagnosed with phenylketonuria), consult legitimate scientific bodies, like the NHS or Health Canada.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
"They also found that those who drank one a day were nearly three times as likely to be diagnosed with dementia."
"Those who drank one to six artificially sweetened beverages a week were 2.6 times as likely to experience an ischemic stroke but were no more likely to develop dementia"
So if you drink six a week, there's no change to risk of dementia, but somehow the seventh triples your risk?
Soda pop is poison. You don't need a study to prove that. There are only four safe drinks in this world. Water, milk, orange juice, and beer. Wait, there are only five safe drinks in this world. Water, milk, orange juice, wine and beer.
Don't imply they implied it.
This is not news. This has been common knowledge for over a decade.
What if I sip it?
"We studied 2888 participants aged >45 years for incident stroke (mean age 62 [SD, 9] years; 45% men) and 1484 participants aged >60 years for incident dementia (mean age 69 [SD, 6] years; 46% men). Beverage intake was quantified using a food-frequency questionnaire at cohort examinations 5 (1991–1995), 6 (1995–1998), and 7 (1998–2001). We quantified recent consumption at examination 7 and cumulative consumption by averaging across examinations. Surveillance for incident events commenced at examination 7 and continued for 10 years. We observed 97 cases of incident stroke (82 ischemic) and 81 cases of incident dementia (63 consistent with Alzheimer’s disease)."
Not a lot of people and with questionaires you get such accurate data.
"the hazard ratios were 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.26–6.97) for ischemic stroke and 2.89 (95% confide"nce interval, 1.18–7.07)"
the error bars are huge and the value is close to a ratio of 1.
So nothing to see here.
You know, it's funny. In Israel, there is a label on diet Coke that reads: DO NOT CONSUME MORE THAN 3 gr. ASPARTAME DAILY PER ADULT.
Never seen that warning on the cans here in the US...
The older you get the closer you come to dying.
It certainly does imply a need for more research. The fact is we just don't know yet, and to assume that it's harmless because "everybody drinks it" is merely a show of ego.
This is what the people who are "against" all-natural and/or organic foods don't understand: all-natural rules this problem out. It takes a potential health risk -- one that may or may not be serious -- right off the table. You don't even need to know whether or not a particular chemical compound may be harmful, and to what extent, or whether society has had enough time to properly evaluate it, or if you can pronounce it and how many syllables it has. You simply eliminate the possibility. Problem solved. Sure, everything we eat can be reduced to chemical compounds, but that's besides the point. Human beings evolved by eating -- wait for it -- organic foods. This implies that what comes from mother nature is good for human beings, at least good enough for millions of years of evolution, and that what doesn't come from mother nature should be regarded as suspicious until proven harmless (not just marketed as harmless).
By choosing all-natural and/or organic (which really just means all-natural before AND after the harvest, at least to the extent possible), you can take the entire issue (of whether artificial ingredients introduce new health risks) off the table. The only thing standing in the way is ego.
This reeks of being sponsored by the sugar industry. Those bastards paid Harvard researches in the 1960's to leave out sugar's being a cause of obesity and to shift the blame to fat. The result is a diabetes "epidemic", likely fueled by excessive sugar consumption taxing the pancreas until it no longer controls insulin levels properly. Any "study' like this should be suspect. How can an artificial sweetener that is not absorbed by the body, like sucralose, have any physical effect, unless the brain hates being tricked and is getting even.
Don't consume any medicines, drugs, manmade "foods" made in a lab or similar until a couple of centuries of test subjects proove they are somehow good for you. If you have to take a srug it better be an old one that at least has a 70 year track record so we know some of the ways it screws you over.
So you're saying it was done so they can beg for funds to do the "real" study.
You can manipulate statistics to show a link between just about any pair of variables. Massage this. Try a dozen different formulas to calculate significance. And tada! You have the link you were digging for.
The article I read about this study this morning stated: "But after accounting for all lifestyle factors, the researchers found the link to dementia was statistically insignificant." Despite their best efforts, I'm sure. Yet the clickbait headline and lead still blare out "dementia!!"
Has anybody looked at who FUNDED this "study"?... could it have been https://www.sugar.org/ ???
For example, people have been trying to demonize Aspertame for YEARS.
But the American Cancer Society finds no ill effects https://www.cancer.org/cancer/...
There are other examples if you search.
I saw national news reporting on this yesterday and it was the most biased 1 sided reporting. Sure there are legit considerations that are RARELY shown in science reporting today and those were brought up. At first it seemed like the news was doing it's job. Then you look at the "other side" of the presentation and it was edited down to being worthless with the clip shown from one of the scientists who wrote the paper talking about nothing of consequence which anybody could have said. The amount of time spend was also unusually high for a science story. It was clearly damage control for the industry. It may have been of the best kind but it was still heavily biased.
Still at the "my dog doesn't bite" phase, before the next phase they will already have their own funded studies saying "dog bites are good for you."
So don't drink more than 24 cans of Diet Coke a day (125mg) or 52 cans of Diet Mountain Dew (57mg).
Good to know
Letter To Iran
NOTHING has been proved. Not even "may be tied".
They took a sample of old people and separated those who drank artificially sweetened drinks not taking anything else in consideration - lifestyle, diets, etc.
It's weak correlation that could end up disproven in the long run. This is not something worth publishing.
Maybe more older people are wisely avoided sugared soft drinks and drinking the diet sodas but have the increased risk of dementia and stroke purely because of age.
My father drinks diet drinks, he's 75. I'll let everyone know when the poisonous effects kick in. My dead grandma also drank them and she was cut down at the tender young age of 90 by the artificial chemicals causing fatal stroke
There's almost a half-dozen common artificial sweeteners on the market right now. Are they saying they're all bad or just a particular one? Maybe some of them? Was this research funded by the sugar industry? They're the new tobacco industry, after all. If you think this is a propaganda movie, think about the tobacco industry fifty years ago. And search for "sugar industry lies", plenty of facts out there.
#DeleteFacebook
There are a bunch of sweateners used.
Sugar avoidance in youth leads to reality avoidance in old age. There's the causation! Maybe.
This story is probably relevant to /. because I've known many coders who suck down sugar soda or Aspartame soda like no tomorrow. Having followed the dementia research I put it to ya'll that a nice hot cup of tea most probably the best way to a slake thirst and keep those neurons chugging away. A bit of cream or sugar is just fine. There is a growing body of evidence correlating Alzheimers/Dementia to diabetes and metabolic imbalance and our choice of drinks is likely to be a contributing factor. Plus it is so civilized.
The dementia lead to drinking diet soda, not the other way around.
And the researchers acknowledge that by saying they don't have a mechanism. Once again, a link has been found. Whether that link turns to be some sort of co-factor, and there is no direct link between diet pop and strokes and dementia, is something further research will determine.
But damage has been done. As the conclusion of the abstract notes:
Conclusions—Artificially sweetened soft drink consumption was associated with a higher risk of stroke and dementia.
That's all that 99.9 percent of people will look at, and accept as the truth.
As for further research, that really helped in counteracting the deliberate lie of the Anti-Vaxxer researcher and his lawyer buddy and their plan to fleece "Big Pharma" buy banking on sympathy for children, no?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Don't imply they implied it.
Did he really imply that implicative implication?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It seems like the artificial sweeteners have been implicated as potential health threats for various reasons over the years. IMO, it's very possible that at least a few of them really do have negative side effects.
I agree with the people who questioned why you'd drink diet soda anyway? It always has a weird chemical aftertaste. Yes, like most things, you can get used to it after a while. But why bother? There's nothing redeeming, health-wise, about drinking a soda -- so it has no upsides there. Seems like you may as well get used to the flavor of something else instead like tea if you're just drinking it to avoid sugar and you want something with more flavor than plain water.
I'm kind of a regular soda fan, myself. Bad habit? Sure, but I really enjoy Dr. Pepper and Mr. Pibb and several of the others. But at least I don't feel like I'm compromising flavor when I drink one -- and I know the downsides of sugary drinks. It's not a big question-mark like artificial sweetener chemicals that were often discovered and produced initially for very different purposes.
Whats this? I am going to have to call BS on your claim.
Researches making all kinds of money by falsifying research? I've been told that is impossible by the AGW supporters. Well, that is until you find a researcher who doesn't believe in AGW in which case of course they are in it for the money.
Its almost as if you liberals say a scientist can never be bribed to lie if they say something agreeing with your political views. The only way a scientist could POSSIBLE say something opposite to your political views they are obviously paid to say it.
You are pretty much confirming what half the AGW "deniers" are claiming. Was that your intention? If not, could you repost your note in a way that is consistent with researchers never being paid to make pre-determined outcomes.
Thanks!
You make an attack against AGW "deniers". One of their claims is that AGW scientists are making pre-determined outcomes in hope of getting more research money, a statement that is laughed at frequently by AGW supporters. Because OBVIOUSLY a scientist would never skew their research to make a few bucks.
Then you quickly claim this research looks bad and the case you give for it is because the scientists are being paid to make a pre-determined outcome.
It sounds like you are just making willy-nilly claims based on nothing and calling anyone who disagrees with you stupid with no evidence to back it up. Why is it you are so hateful to people who have different opinions than you? Why is it you use the SAME argument you say is invalid to make your point and hope no one calls you on it?
Could you please clarify?
Consuming as much as single packet of aspartame gives me a splitting headache. I tested pretty extensively (on myself) several years ago when I was in my mid-20s, and re-confirm my finding when I (rarely) inadvertently consume some. I was (and am) in pretty good health and physically fit, with no known relevant health issues. (Although similar quantities of thujone result in scintillating scotoma for me.)
Rule 35 of the internet: "If it can be hacked, it will be". - Charles Stross
We don't want the price of quality puerh teas to go up because of the unwashed masses revolt.
Correlation does not equal causation.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
You will be amongst the first the 4th Reich executes when we rise again!
The problem with this type of study is that it cannot show cause and effect.
It's probably true that people who drink a lot of diet soda are more likely to have an ischemic stroke than people who don't. However, that isn't the same as claiming diet soda causes ischemic stroke.
For example, you could probably show that men who wear belts larger than 60 inches are at increased risk for heart attack. It would have nothing to do with the belt itself, but everything to do with obesity and sedentary lifestyle. It certainly wouldn't mean that you could avoid a heart attack by not wearing a belt or switching to suspenders.
When you consider that most health conscious people avoid diet sodas, you would expect that drinking large amounts of diet soda would probably correlate with increased risk of many different health problems.
Remember - we live in an age where cane sugar is considered healthy.
Only by brains that have been damaged already by cane sugar, too bad for you and your brain.
Jolt Cola. All the caffiene and TWICE the sugar!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
By "soda" the article means pop. Sodas are ice cream in flavored fizzy water.
"We estimated the 10-year risk of both incident stroke and dementia beginning from the 7th examination cycle [of the Framingham Heart Study] (1998â"2001)."
It should be noted that during the study saccharin, acesulfame-K (Sunett/Sweet One), and aspartame (NutraSweet) were FDA approved, whereas sucralose (Splenda) was approved in 1999, neotame in 2002, and stevia in 2008. So who knows, maybe those sweeteners are not linked to stroke & dementia.
"When comparing daily cumulative intake to 0 per week (reference), the hazard ratios were 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.26â"6.97) for ischemic stroke and 2.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.18â"7.07) for Alzheimerâ(TM)s disease. Sugar-sweetened beverages were not associated with stroke or dementia."
That is some serious risk increase!
Tweet by: Vinay Prasad @VinayPrasad82 24h24 hours ago
Diet soda study,
Adjust for the 90+ comparisons you provide, and a significant p is 0.0005
Nothing here is significant.
This is BAD paper pic.twitter.com/KNwOsb9dPM
The connection and cause of these diseases and more is METHANOL that is concentrated in ASPARTAME and also in all canned or bottled fruit, fruit juices & preserves, vegetables. PLUS all "smoked" items and indeed, via smoking itself. METHANOL is "wood alcohol" or one-carbon alcohol [vs the alcohol we drink, called Ethyl alcohol, or two carbon alcohol].
Methanol is very very toxic to humans but not to lab test animals. Think about that. Methanol in your body is metabolized often and in many places into FORMALDEHYDE HYDRATE.......WHICH IS DEADLY. Think of this as a PLASTICISOR [my word]. It figures in MS, heart attacks and some cancers, alzheimers, diabetes, etc...
SEE: "WHILE SCIENCE SLEEPS A Sweetener Kills" by Dr Woodrow Monte
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--OFF THE TRUMP TRAIN--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
dmorso1@netzero.net
802 645 9727
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 22, 2017 @04:08PM (#54283891)
The connection and cause of these diseases and more is METHANOL that is concentrated in ASPARTAME and also in all canned or bottled fruit, fruit juices & preserves, vegetables. PLUS all "smoked" items and indeed, via smoking itself. METHANOL is "wood alcohol" or one-carbon alcohol [vs the alcohol we drink, called Ethyl alcohol, or two carbon alcohol].
Methanol is very very toxic to humans but not to lab test animals. Think about that. Methanol in your body is metabolized often and in many places into FORMALDEHYDE HYDRATE.......WHICH IS DEADLY. Think of this as a PLASTICISOR [my word]. It figures in MS, heart attacks and some cancers, alzheimers, diabetes, etc...
SEE: "WHILE SCIENCE SLEEPS A Sweetener Kills" by Dr Woodrow Monte
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--OFF THE TRUMP TRAIN--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
dmorso1@netzero.net
802 645 9727
looks like you are refusing to put up my comment very suspicious
....Panic and flip out now.
Worry about whether or not there is some truth to ONE SINGLE UNSCIENTIFICALLY DONE STUDY later.
No thanks. Fuck off while you are at it.
Does ANYONE do REAL science anymore?
Or, are we stuck with politically motivated crap?!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.