Pepsi NEXT

[Fritzo]

I'm really not a nutter when it comes to diet drinks or a lot of other things that go into foods. But I'm also not so naive to think that the FDA is the be all, end all beacon of truth when it comes to the saftey of everything that they approve. There's been no shortage of drugs that passed approval and were later revoked. With these types of things it's more of a long term exposure than high does fed to a lab rat over a short duration.

I also do not fully trust the objective nature of the FDA. I want to. But it's still a government body and we all know that money tends to sway some attitudes/opinions on things.

The difference is drugs that get pulled (and that's very rare I might add), are usually only on the market for a few years. Artificial sweeteners have been around since 1880, so that's been plenty of time to see if they have any ill effects.

 

[iroast]

No thanks:

HFCS
aspartame
sucralose
acesulfame potassium.

This.

 

[uclaLabrat]

I said artificial sweeteners do not cause cancer.

He said the max safe dosage is 6 drinks per day (implying more will give you cancer).

I posted a link officially saying artificial sweeteners do not have any links to cancer.

My mistake, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt in his argument, which I took as "the amount required to cause cancer is a higher dose than would reasonably be consumed". I thought you were arguing against the dosage, not implying that there was no dangerous dose.


I need more coffee.









With natural sweeteners.

 

[Oyeve]

I prefer Pesi Throwback. Made with real sugar. Tastes almost like it did in the 60s-70s. Dont drink much soda at all tho. Maybe once/twice a month.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

He said the max safe dosage is 6 drinks per day (implying more will give you cancer).

I was implying that it would be un-healthy; cancer is unlikely unless you have trouble processing it.

National Cancer Institute vs. Dude on Internet Forum...who to believe?

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners

I got my info from a remark in a journal article; I think they were more concerned about the blood-sugar imbalance that can occur when drinking sweet, but caloric-limited things.


http://www.diabetes.org/news-resear...009-digests/diet-soda-linked-to-higher-1.html

People who drank diet soda at least once a day had a 36% greater chance of having a high waist measurement and high blood glucose levels, both of which are features of metabolic syndrome. People who drank diet soda at least once a day also had a 67% higher chance of getting diabetes compared to those who did not drink diet sodas, and this was not related to body fat measurements.

 

[Fritzo]

I was implying that it would be un-healthy; cancer is unlikely unless you have trouble processing it.


I got my info from a remark in a journal article; I think they were more concerned about the blood-sugar imbalance that can occur when drinking sweet, but caloric-limited things.


http://www.diabetes.org/news-resear...009-digests/diet-soda-linked-to-higher-1.html

I think that's more of a category/behavior thing than the result of a product.

Overweight people eat a lot of unhealthy things, then switch to diet drinks because they think it will help them cut back. It's like saying "Race car drivers die from auto accidents, but they use seat belts. Therefore, seatbelts may be dangerous."

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I think that's more of a category/behavior thing than the result of a product.

Overweight people eat a lot of unhealthy things, then switch to diet drinks because they think it will help them cut back. It's like saying "Race car drivers die from auto accidents, but they use seat belts. Therefore, seatbelts may be dangerous."

I understand an argument from causation; Though your inability, or unwillingness, to accept the potential complexity of the situation shows that you may not fully appreciate the depth of the conversation.

To use your race-car-driver metaphor.

It's like arguing that armor-all causes health problems; evidence is in the increase in health problems among race-car drivers.

You counter Armor-all does NOT cause cancer: FACT!

I say: well no, but it is linked with increases in OCPD and there is a good theoretical reason to think that it would cause OCPD.

You counter: yea, but race-car drivers inhale tire-smoke, car-exhaust and lots of other shit; so OCPD is caused by something other than armor-all.

If you think that pointing to potential third-causes counters a strong theoretical argument you've lost the ability to engage in reasoned discourse. Given the strength of the correlation and given strong theoretical reasoning surrounding why the correlation may be causal; you must now not only offer an equal or better theoretical third-factor, but you must show that they are mutually exclusive.

That is: just because the race-car driver breaths tire-smoke doesn't mean armor-all isn't doing something to him; you need evidence that there is no effect of armor-all outside of the effect that you would expect from tire-smoke alone.

Such is where the conversation is at: not that we don't know if diet soda is correlated with diabetes, but that while other factors are part of why diet-soda drinkers get diabetes nothing has been presented to show that those factors exclude diet soda from having an impact. This is problematic for the 'diet is fine' argument because of the theoretical link between tricking your brain into thinking it had something sweet (thus releasing insulin without sugar for it to process) and diabetes.

Strong theory is the basis upon which we assume causation until we have experimental evidence to the contrary or better theory.