287
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] 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.

[-] 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.

[-] 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.

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

News

23627 readers
2696 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