287
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Holymoly@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 1 year ago

Removing all forms of added sugar would probably make everyone feel better. Even minimizing natural sugar intake.

Sugar is terrible, there’s no doubt about it. Artificial or otherwise.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

There's no research that indicates the currently used artificial sweeteners are bad for you.

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Theres mixed analysis over the decades, actually, and different groups have different conclusions.

https://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/sweet-n-low-dangers-still-exist/

Overall, id say limiting added sugars (natural or artificial) is rpobably better for your health long term

[-] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Artificial sugars and sweeteners are, by and large, very different things. Aspartame isn't a sugar of any sort.

[-] wolfshadowheart@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago

The implication here is that aspartame is often used in products that have these sugars present. Chances that aspartame is in a product without sugars is exorbitantly lower.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I want to be super clear if anyone finds this and thinks maybe...

No, there is no evidence of artificial sweeteners causing harm. There is no conspiracy, and after many many studies over decades, nothing has been found. If there had been, then the artificial sweeteners would have been banned like the ones you've never heard of because we all banned them for causing problems.

If you drink regular soda today, you should absolutely look at replacing that with a diet varient without sugar. From everything we have learned over decades, it's absolutely safe.

[-] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A few people are replying with links (of various relevance) but you are just saying "no" and claiming you're being "super clear". Some of the replies are directly contraindications of the claim:

If you drink regular soda today, you should absolutely look at replacing that with a diet varient without sugar.

Your counterpoint is saying they are "absolutely safe". I don't know whether you are right or wrong. It's not anywhere near my field, but I can say I don't find your rhetoric convincing.

Edit: I fucked up and pasted the wrong quote. I changed the quote to the one I meant.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

You do not need to find my rhetoric "convincing." One person posted one link, the link was to a meta study that concludes that artificial sweeteners have no evidence that they cause harm.

I am being clear, I am not using confusing language, and I'm stating one thing, over and over. I'm doing this because other people are muddying the water with poor claims, and I do not want anyone reading this thread to come away with the idea that maybe the artificial sweeteners are bad. There is no evidence. Again, I'm being super clear. There is absolutely no evidence, and they are absolutely safe. There is no evidence that suggests they are not absolutely safe.

This place is full of nerds like you and me, and they like to be pandantic. I'm being clear, and using phrases like "absolutely safe" is the correct terminology when we know of no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Again, artificial sweeteners are as far as we know, and we have studied them a lot, absolutely safe and you should consider replacing your sugar intake with them or reducing your sugar intake entirely if you can. Sugar is a large cause of health problems.

[-] smooth_tea@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

the link was to a meta study that concludes that artificial sweeteners have no evidence that they cause harm.

This is how the meta study concludes:

Results from prospective cohort studies suggest the possibility of long-term harm in the form of increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality. Further research is needed to determine whether the observed associations are genuine or a result of reverse causation and/or residual confounding. Further research is also needed in children and pregnant women, the latter for which prospective cohort studies currently suggest possible unfavourable effects of NSS consumption on birthweight and adiposity in offspring later in life.

The scientists who produced the study seem a lot less convinced than you.

[-] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

are as far as we know

Who is we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

My point is that you are just some voice on the internet. When I say I don't find your rhetoric convincing, I mean that the only evidence you offer is rhetoric. And that is not convincing regardless of how clear you are speaking.

[-] angrystego@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Where are the hydrohomies?

[-] Fermion@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

You're using overly broad language. Multiple family members and myself get brutal headaches from aspartame. While that's certainly not life threatening damage, it is fair to call that a harmful effect. I am not better off with many products switching to aspartame as a sweetener.

Yes, it is just an anecdote, but it's enough to show that absolute statements don't usually hold universally. Please stay open to the possibility of nuance.

[-] smooth_tea@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Ten-Week Sucralose Consumption Induces Gut Dysbiosis and Altered Glucose and Insulin Levels in Healthy Young Adults

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8880058/

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

"Absolutely safe" sounds false. Pure water isnt "absolutely" safe after all

[-] echo64@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

Please be overly pandantic somewhere else, it's not useful here.

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Seemed fair to me, youre using strong words like "absolutely safe", even though there are known reactions to various sweeteners and they arent "absolutely" safe, as per the link I cited above.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Yes this is the overly pandantic part

[-] visor841@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Eh, IIRC there's research that if you eat incredible amounts it'll likely be bad for you. But it's a lot and the equivalent amount of sugar would be way way worse.

[-] msage@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago

Drinking too much water can kill you, too

[-] force@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

i actually almost died from hyponatremia this year

[-] smooth_tea@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago
[-] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I can't tell what this is supposed to convey. They asked for a study. You give a bare url to an abstract with the quote

there is no clear consensus on whether non-sugar sweeteners are effective for long-term weight loss or maintenance, or if they are linked to other long-term health effects at intakes within the ADI.

Are you agreeing with the post you are replying to?

[-] smooth_tea@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

They asked for a study. You give a bare url to an abstract with the quote

Perhaps you could download the entire meta study that is linked next to the abstract and go through it? And why does it matter whether I'm agreeing with the post?

From all the years of reading about artificial sugar studies, it's clear to me that there could be a risk but it is complex and varies from person to person, I find it misplaced to shout that there is absolutely no risk involved. To quote the study:

Result of this review largely agree with those of other recent systematic reviews, in that replacing sugars with NSS in the short term results in reductions in body weight, with little impact on other cardiometabolic risk factors, but is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality in the longer term.

[-] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Perhaps you could download the entire meta study that is linked next to the abstract and go through it?

No, I am not refereeing a paper because some commenter links it in a web forum. Why would you think that's even close to what anyone should do in this environment?

[-] smooth_tea@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

So let me get this straight, someone asks for a study, I provide the study of studies, which you misjudge originally for being only an abstract, and then when I correct you and tell you it's a study, suddenly it's not good enough. What do you actually want?

[-] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What do you actually want?

I want conversation. Bare links are not that. Looking at the link led me to believe you providing evidence for the quack who was professing absolute safety.

Scientifically, I agree with you. I was asking the "absolute safety" commentor to provide context to studies to lead one to that conclusion. I would have been happy to read the same from you.

You have a lot to say for someone who is happy to slap a url down and move along. :)

[-] sock@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

there's little research to show sugar dangers to be more than correlation

fat people eat a lot of sugar. fat people also eat a lot. eating a lot is how you get fat, drinking calories just happens to be a fast track to getting fat. diet soda happens to be physiologically like drinking water. fat people drink diet instead of sugar coke thats already 200-1000 calories of their day GONE with very very minimal change.

then those fat people supplement the lost sugars with more food and they gain weight. then you get studies showing GUYS DIET SODA CAUSES WEIGHT GAIN (in fat people)

but no its not the sugar its not the macros its YOU eating too much and you can eat less to lose weight that's just simple science. body types, "nuance", "bad metabolism". none of that shits real it all stems from shitty dietary choices and lack of muscle.

all of this to say unless theres medical issues or medical intervention your weight and body type is 100% in your control should you choose to take control

[-] cocobean@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

How about all the research that shows sugar is addictive AF

[-] sock@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

self control is a thing everything is addictive in some facet refined sugars just happens to trigger a stronger dopamine response than other things.

but in the end of the day self control is necessary nobody can control you except you. so dont blame sugars addicitiveness for being overweight if you are. its solely an overeating issue.

[-] cocobean@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I feel like you underestimate addiction. "Self control" is what's needed to not start smoking; but it takes something stronger to quit smoking, I think -- a more refined willpower than simple "self control".

And sure, it's something a person could cultivate and train on their own with time and focus. But so are most other things. "Why aren't you good at drawing? All you need to do is practice every day! it's simple."

[-] sock@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

nicotine is chemically addictive sugar is not.

im a stoner and can assure you the way to quit smoking something that isnt chemically addictive is cold turkey will-power babey. ive taken long breaks when needed with months of straight use 24/7 down to zero for months. its all mind over matter.

im also shredded now because slight caloric deficit and healthy eating is also straight will power mind over matter to consistently eat a slight deficit and well for months. and i do a rigourous calisthenics strength routine consistently to supplement thus I'm quite ripped.

shit even for my cut i completely quit eating added sugars cold turkey i didnt eat any aside from the occasional if i was given something for like 4 months. it was also pretty easy and made occasional sweets taste better and fruits/veggies were gas.

people make shit up as excuses like "ohh im skinny fat its too late", "i dont have time in between my laying down and netflix binge". no body types dont exist. never have never will stop using excuses. if you want to be lazy accept the fact YOU ARE LAZY theres no other excuse than you being lazy. which is chill being lazy is fun sometimes (remember im a stoner) but don't pretend its for some other reason its all on YOU.

everyone thinks oh its too hard i cant do it. but no youre just lazy and weak willed and im not joking. you can do anything if you want to thats the beauty of life. things don't come easy if you see someone doing crazy shit that's probably a conglomeration of years of hard work and dedication. they probably started looking and thinking like you til they woke up.

WAKE UP you dont need to be fat, your metabolism doesn't need to suffer with age, your joints dont need to get worse. all of this happens from a lack of training and poor diet NOT age. age provides the time for your body to degrade you have to prevent that degration. I FUCKING HATE when people say your metabolism will slow down and youll get fat eventually. bitch no ill never be like you.

also finally, i am a drug addict i know about addiction trust me. I've quit some shittier things it takes effort but in the end of the day still its on YOU to quit nobody can quit for you.

[-] cocobean@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

nicotine is chemically addictive sugar is not.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean a sugar addiction is more like a gambling addiction than a nicotine addiction, I don't think that's the case; you can find studies that claim sugar addiction is "opiate-like". There are also some sensational claims like "sugar is more addictive than cocaine", though that seems like more of a stretch to me.

I'm glad to hear you are in great shape, and it's clear you tie a lot of self worth to physical fitness. But I would caution you not to use that as an excuse to look down on others.

[-] Apollo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Of course sugar is addictive as fuck - you would literally die without it.

[-] StackedTurtles@programming.dev -4 points 1 year ago

There’s nothing inherently bad about sugar. It’s just energy. If you intake more energy than you burn it’s getting stored for future use (you get fat). The same goes for almost anything “unhealthy”. Manage your energy intake and almost nothing is unhealthy.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works -5 points 1 year ago

The biggest question in this thread, who would downvote this?

[-] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Probably people who are a bit sketch about the "even natural sugars" bit, since that removes a TON of otherwise healthy food options. Minimize added sugar, sure.

this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2023
287 points (89.5% liked)

News

23627 readers
2542 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS