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.
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.
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?
Don't imply they implied 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.
The older you get the closer you come to dying.
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.
Not exactly. Also slim people drink diet sodas, to stay slim. Best way to avoid this, is to drink - water.
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.
it's drunk by fat people.
You're going to need some real data to back that up. All the 'normal' sized people I know who drink soda drink diet soda.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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
But, the "normal" person today, is pretty much obese as compared to someone as recent as maybe 20 years ago or so....
But heaven forbid you say that to people....you cannot "fat shame" people, and everyone is to feel good about themselves.
Hence, overweight is now the accepted new normal.
While that might help peoples' self image, it won't ever help their physical health.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It's not even that. This is just another "study" by somebody with an agenda against sweeteners.
There's no data, no evidence, just a guy manipulating numbers with excel until he finds a result he likes.
No sig today...
But, the "normal" person today, is pretty much obese as compared to someone as recent as maybe 20 years ago or so....
I'm a big guy at 350 pounds (think football player), but I'm always astonished to see people who are bigger than me.
The data is in this study. Higher BMI is correlated with increased consumption of artificially sweetened drinks.
Sugar avoidance in youth leads to reality avoidance in old age. There's the causation! Maybe.
There's no data, no evidence, just a guy manipulating numbers with excel until he finds a result he likes.
Torture the data until they confess.
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 wheatgrass.
Yes, that stuff that cows eat and humans can't digest.
No sig today...
slim people drink juice cleanse blends.
Not everyone is Asian.
...you cannot "fat shame" people,
You can. My mother does it to me all the time.
However she doesn't do it to anyone else, and no one else does it to me (to my face).
See how it works?
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.
"And wheatgrass.
Yes, that stuff that cows eat and humans can't digest."
The 'not digesting' is sort of the point that you missed.
You can. My mother does it to me all the time.
I'm often accused of "slim-shaming" people when I eat 25% of a 1,200-calorie plate, and take the rest home to make into three additional meals.
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.
Actually, you have to cross milk off that list as well. Not only bad for you, but racist to drink milk.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Also by Skinny people with really high metabolisms....
"No connection was found between those health risks and other sugary beverages, such as sugar-sweetened sodas, fruit juice and fruit drinks."
"Fat people", as you lovingly refer to diet soda drinkers, also drink beverages for which no connection was found. Sorry, but your comments aren't so insightful.
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.
I know plenty of people who drink "regular" soda but are not overweight. I weigh 175 lbs. and wouldn't touch a diet soda. The key is to have it sparingly. I might have two sodas a month. It does seem as though overweight people tend to *always* be drinking diet soda, though.
Like my Dad who is currently in the nursing home dying from alzheimers.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Did you even read the study before criticizing it? My guess is no. The study does take into account "waist/hip ratio", which is similar for the sugar soda and diet soda groups, among other parameters.
But lots of people do live in California, including a lot of Asians, a lot of obese people, and a lot of people who follow shitty Hollywood-style "cleanse" fads.
He referred to slim people with his generalization.
You referred to Asians with yours.
His was less inaccurate.
...you cannot "fat shame" people,
You can. My mother does it to me all the time.
However she doesn't do it to anyone else, and no one else does it to me (to my face).
See how it works?
WHY YOU SO FAT?
Have you eaten yet? Sit down and eat. Eat more. What do you mean you're not hungry? Eat! Eat!
WHY YOU SO FAT?
facepalm
That's not how science works. A lot of studies do turn out to be false, but that's not because some guy is fudging numbers. It does happen sometimes, but it's a serious allegation, and for you to simply dismiss a peer reviewed study without evidence puts you in the anti-science crowd.
This is one of the weirdest Asian stereotypes I've ever heard of - Asians drink fruit cleanse blends? Really?
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.
You forgot butter. There's nothing like a nice hot mug of butter to start your day.
But the diet soda drinkers were more likely to have diabetes (9% diabetes among the people drinking 0 diet soda, and 26% among those drinking 1+/day)
Most likely, these people were drinking regular soda, got diabetes, and then switched to diet soda. The diabetes was damaging the blood vessels and leading to stroke and dementia.
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
[...]gained most of their weight through fast food[...]
I haven't eaten fast food in 10+ years.
[...] posts on Internet forums in most of their free time.
I only post on Slashdot while waiting for a script to get finish at work.
And who plans to shoot people who disagree with him.
Thanks to asshats like you, I'm on target to make extra $50+ in ad revenues for my blog this month.
https://www.kickingthebitbucket.com/tag/slashdot/
Yet there are several problems with the study.
First, it's difficult to peer inside the data and establish if the artificially sweetened beverage drinkers had high A1C or other metabolic markers. It says, cautiously, that sugary vs artificially-sweetened beverages seem to cause higher incidence of cardio-vascular problems, citing strokes, etc.
Then, no specific artificial sweetener was identified as being consumed to establish sucralose vs many other sweeteners as a possible culprit. Just "sweeteners"
There are so many ambiguities that the high cautions in the study make the data and its representation not quite useless.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Sugar raises blood pressure. High blood pressure causes capillaries to burst. The heal, but at the cost of a few surrounding cells. High blood pressure would also push more water into the brain cavity, causing loss of brain tissue.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
We don't want the price of quality puerh teas to go up because of the unwashed masses revolt.
The trick is to drink nothing but Mountain Dew High Voltage, eat nothing but Pizza, Chips (Doritos Especially), and Lays' Ranch dip. Throw in jerky for added protein, and cigarettes for added appetite.
I don't recommend the Supersize Me diet for weight training. You sound like a pregnant woman when working out in the gym. Neither the guys nor the gays will be impressed by your screaming.
That this study found no correlation between sugar-sweetened sodas and these health risks among fat people should tell you right there that there is something really strange with this study.
Yeah, if that;s the only thing you drink. I drink diet soda, regular soda, various beverages with tea and/or protein/vitamins in it.
I don't worry
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
Nd hw my... 'That's a health nut' stereotype, not an Oriental one, as opposed to Occidental, whi can be thought to include Siberia.
Perhaps it is just a semantic argument, because when I hear someone is a soda drinker I assume at least a few sodas a week, if not an average of at least one per day. I guess that should be called a regular soda drinker instead of just a soda drinker.
And to the OP's point, every regular soda drinker I know that I can think of who is not obese almost exclusively drinks diet sodas. It is just too hard to consume an extra 150-300 calories per day via drinks and still be in good shape.
It does seem as though overweight people tend to *always* be drinking diet soda, though.
Certainly most people drinking diet sodas are overweight, but most people who like the color blue are also overweight (hint: because most people are overweight, at least in the US). I would be surprised if you know many regular soda drinkers (about one drink per day) who are both in good shape and primarily drink non-diet sodas.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
But maybe not neccessarily for being in fashion, perhaps? Can't be bothered to look up the date for a friendly jibe. https://www.bing.com/search?q=...
But the diet soda drinkers were more likely to have diabetes (9% diabetes among the people drinking 0 diet soda, and 26% among those drinking 1+/day)
Most likely, these people were drinking regular soda, got diabetes, and then switched to diet soda. The diabetes was damaging the blood vessels and leading to stroke and dementia.
As you allude to, those cited statistics are meaningless. We would at least need to know how the percentage compares to those drinking 1+ non-diet sodas. Of course even more importantly we would need to see the figures when adjusted for eating habits, exercise levels, and prior drinking habits.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Isn't it 7% among people drinking 0 diet soda and 22% among those drinking 1+/day?
I'm looking at the DM n (%) row of table 1.
Anyways, that's a good criticism of the study. Other posters' criticisms were not so good. Please understand that I am not defending the study. I am defending the scientific method. I have no expectation that the study is correct.
Indeed. There's a lot of skepticism here. When you factor in confounding factors:
The study appears to be an excellent example of the reverse causality effect. For example, let's say I was doing a study on on the effects of taking a heart medication on heart attacks. So I randomly collect thousands of people and study their incidence of heart attacks, and compare which people who had heart attacks were taking a heart medication and which weren't. Lo and behold, the people taking heart medication are far more likely to have a heart attack! Does that mean the medication is to blame? Not at all; it means that the people who are on heart medication are already more likely to be taking heart medication. It's the risk of a heart attack that's causing the taking of heart medication, not the heart medication that's causing the risk of heart attack.
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
There are a bunch of sweateners used.
Please pay attention. We are discussing chemicals that make sodas artificially taste sugary, not chemicals that make you artificially perspire.
I drank (past tense) diet soda often. I wasn't fat. Still am not. I'd read correlative evidence of dementia as well as insulin resistance so I gave up. Coffee (unsweetened) is way better.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
You cannot "fat shame" people. . . . While that might help peoples' self image, it won't ever help their physical health.
Neither will berating them in public. The best way to help is to build up their self-esteem and demonstrate the benefits of a healthy lifestyle. Those that can will learn. Those that aren't ready, won't. Shaming them will just cause them to retreat from public and never learn.
Stick to breast milk. It's the only way to be sure.
Have gnu, will travel.
it's drunk by fat people.
You're going to need some real data to back that up. All the 'normal' sized people I know who drink soda drink diet soda.
My anecdotal response to your anecdote is that I mainly see obese people drinking diet soda... along with entire pizzas, supersized fries, etc.
We'll have to disagree, agreeing to or otherwise... unless you can put on a really convincing argument for it, and who has time for that, amirite?
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.
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?
Here's the scoop. AGW deniers are arguing against the laws of physics. If the CO2 and methane released from sequestered sources by humans does not have any effect upon the proven effect that the so called greenhouse gases have of retaining energy from an outside source, which by the way, we would not exist here on earth if it didn't - the the laws of physics need rewritten, and teh deniers have to come up with a different mechanism that mimics teh energy retention effects exactly as the effect that theuy claim do not exist. Or the deniers must accept that the greenhouse effect actually exists, then produce the evidence that these gases, which were sequestered in the earth, are somehow different. than the gases already in the atmosphere, of which tehy are chemically identical.
Now here's the fun part. I havent torn deniers a new asshole in a while. Present your evidence, and we'll chat about it. Prove why the CO2 is different, or prove that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, and prove what the process is that mimics it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I agree that someone who is drinking pizza has gone too far.
Perhaps it is just a semantic argument, because when I hear someone is a soda drinker I assume at least a few sodas a week, if not an average of at least one per day. I guess that should be called a regular soda drinker instead of just a soda drinker.
And by "a soda," I would hope something like a 12 ounce soda, not 32-oz Big Gulp.
In college I used to get 44-oz gulps of Dr. Pepper. Looking back, I really don't understand why.
"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!
Umm... I work in Flint.
It's a correlation, not a one-to-one mapping. By "thin people also drink diet sodas" what does that mean, and what does that refute? Do you mean all thin people, or the same proportion of thin people drink diet sodas as fat people, or more or less, or? With out any numbers this does nothing whatsoever to refute the suggestion that the causality may be due to being overweight rather than due to drinking diet sodas.
A correlation could mean that there's only a 5% difference in fat versus thin people in their soda drinking habits. And correlation also means you can't show which is the cause and which is the effect. We can come up with ideas about what the causality might be of course, and it's worth discussing.
Cancer causes smoking! It's true, I looked at the numbers.
I only drink diet coke because I find normal coke too sweet.
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
You must be new here.
Value. Gets me every time.
....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.
Perhaps ... seems a bit Spartan