Maybe...
Maybe they were drinking diet drinks because they were fatties* and that was the reason for an increase in vascular death?
*No offence intended, I'm also a fatty
News today calculated to disgruntle many a Reg reader – and some Reg hacks – as it has been revealed by boffinry that the daily glugging down of "diet" soft drinks increases the risk of "vascular events such as stroke, heart attack, and vascular death". "Our results suggest a potential association between daily diet soft drink …
yeah. as the reg author says, the weakness of studies like this is the fact that it's almost impossible to definitely exclude some other factor being the cause of the correlation you're observing, because there's so many of the fucking things. The belt-and-braces approach, where your scientists can point with some kind of confidence to an actual physiological cause of the effect they claim their statistical study identifies, is always somewhat more convincing.
(Otherwise you could end up doing a large statistical survey and concluding that owning a Mercedes is highly likely to cause one's income to grow - after all, all these people with high incomes seem to have Mercedes!)
"as the reg author says, the weakness of studies like this is the fact that it's almost impossible to definitely exclude some other factor being the cause of the correlation you're observin"
it would be nice if the ones that were excluded are reported. For example maybe they ruled out the "fatties" in this case. Most media articles will just tell you what the scientists "found" though without explaining that they ruled out several alternative explanations.
Quoting from the linked abstract:-
"KEY RESULTS
Controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption, BMI, daily calories, consumption of protein, carbohydrates, total fat, saturated fat, and sodium, those who drank diet soft drinks daily (vs. none) had an increased risk of vascular events, and this persisted after controlling further for the metabolic syndrome, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, cardiac disease, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia (HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.06–1.94). There was no increased risk of vascular events associated with regular soft drinks or light diet soft drink consumption."
Diet sodas are diuretic in nature. Drink them predominantly and you will spend much of your life dehydrated. Drink them regularly but add in a couple of liters of water and you don't. Also the sodas don't do much for helping your relevant organs remove stuff that shouldn't be hanging around in your body and pissing it away.
This may well be a shortage of hydrating drinks rather than an excess of dr pepper zero.
Also worth noting if anyone goes through a lot of diuretics, some very important minerals can be depleted from your system as well as the potential dehydration. Speaking as someone who has seen a family member suffering from Potassium / Sodium deficiency, it's a fucking terrifying thing to see (not least because symptoms can be similar to that of a stroke.)
life is unfortunately a fatal disease , where for the majority of humans, our actions or lack of them have a large effect when we toddle off from this mortal coil.
i.e. :-
drink diet / non diet full of sugar pop
drink alcohol
smoke
do dangerous sports, or just cycle in London
eat too much refined carbohydrate
eat too much meat
don't exercise enough
don't eat enough fresh veg and fruit
stress yourself out from too much bollocks from health freaks who think they're going to live forEVAH!
and you'll probably die sooner than the should .
Life is a shit , and then you die.
but just remember , we all get recycled into something else , whether we rot in the ground or go up in smoke, and next time we might be recycled into something better (or worse) . Who knows ? :-D
Oh really and your rebuttal is ?
A simple google of aspartame formaldehyde - discounting any wikibased entries to avoid being accused of "wikisalting" produces (amongst others):
http://suewidemark.freeservers.com/aspartame-formaldhyde.htm
This experiment was conducted in 1997. It has been repeated many times and yet, ignored by Monsanto and the FDA. The study proves that there are significant amounts of the chemical, formaldehyde in Diet Coke - more if the pop has been stored at room temperatures or higher (and it's often stored in hot warehouses in the South and Southwest). A 2000 JAMA study established that intaking even trace amounts of formaldehyde, can cause damage to several areas of the body, yet this is Monsanto's excuse - "yes we know diet pop has formaldehyde in it but it's in such small amounts as to not be dangerous". Aspartame/Nutrasweet is in some 6000 foods and OTC medications. Formaldehyde is on the FDA list of cancer causing chemicals. On some foods, nutrasweet is not listed however, all foods having nutrasweet in them must carry a warning about "phenoketinuria". If you see this warning, you might want to say "no" to the food or medication.
Now put up or shutup.
This post has been deleted by its author
artificially sweetened drinks taste funky as hell. tho i think i read an article.. maybe it was on this very site.. that its something to do with mouth feel? aspartame feels like liquid shit and real sugar doesn't. something like that. either way i wont have it.
If I'm treating myself to a soft drink then i want the real thing goddamnit. whats the point of a treat that you have every day, where the main element that makes it a treat has been removed? people are really fucking dumb.
Speaking as a diabetic, my choices when contemplating a sweetened liquid treat tend to revolve around something containing sugar vs not having to be carbohydrate free for the next six hours.
I tend to prefer solid food and having hamburgers that aren't bun-free.
I don't know about drink texture either. After a couple years of diet pop, I seriously can't tell the difference anymore. Mountain Dew vs the Diet version, side by side, I absolutely can't tell them apart anymore.
"If I'm treating myself to a soft drink then i want the real thing goddamnit. whats the point of a treat that you have every day, where the main element that makes it a treat has been removed?"
Maybe because the caffeine and taste haven't been removed from my daily coke zero?
What's that? You didn't realise that some people have different tastes and are looking for different things from the same product?
Well there you go, you've learned something new today.
You're welcome!
On the rare occassion that I will drink something fizzy, I'll normally choose Diet Coke/Pepsi over regular, as they taste sweeter, and thus are more enjoyable. At least to me, anyway. But it's a rare thing, like if I'm at the cinema, or have taken the kids to MacDonalds.
If anyone's interested, I do indeed have the body of the diet coke window cleaner.
Making the large assumption that everything that swirls in your head is correct - so their "most dangerous poison", if ingested DAILY over a LARGE AMOUNT OF TIME "might" "possibly" cause "increased risk" of heart disease?
Their most dangerous poison is pretty harmless, probably less harmful than living in a city centre?
FAIL, because... well, you do, don't you?
... in the last 10 - 15 years...
Even before I found my way blinking and quivering onto this 'ere interweb thingy, someone at work passed round a leaflet all about Monsanto, their evil empire, aspartame and how it caused Gulf War Syndrome due to being left outside in the Kuwaiti heat and turning into cans of pure formaldeyhde.
The censors have obviously been far more active round your neck of the woods...
Now, where's that last can of Diet Coke gone..?
My experience of diet drinks is that they are horribly over-sweet, presumably because the people who order them are the ones who have a sweet tooth in the first place. It's hard to see how they could get a control group for a test like this, without forcing diet drinks on a random selection of people for years. yuk.
you found them sweet ?
I always found them to be horrible, initially sort of sweet, and then not.
A bit like seeing a really attractive girl who smiles at you,
comes up to you , you think she is up for a kiss, and then
she knees you in the gonads.
The only thing they're useful for is increasing Monsanto and their ilks profit margins,
and I don't really give a s*** about them.
Start with a largish number of people in your study, begin whittling and compartmenting them by gender, race, age, physical health and so forth until you've whittled them down into tiny, tiny boxes and an apparent correlation appears. Blow the correlation up to claim it's significant, publish your study implying the initial number of participants is the only number that matters, claim a big grant and walk away laughing. Repeat next year and find the opposite conclusion. Fame and fortune await.
One of the saddest things is that many non diet soft drinks now use sweeteners in their ingredients because they are cheaper than sugar. Try buying some lemonade for example. Go down the ingredients and sweeteners will probably be in there somewhere.
An occasional treat as a child was a glass of Cherryade. I've now learnt that if I buy a bottle these days it will be rubbish. Partly because I suspect many of the flavourings in the Corona Cherryade of old are probably now outlawed, but also because they have that unmistakable tinge of sweeteners.
In fact I think the only drinkable "diet" drink I've ever tasted was Tab Clear. And that got withdrawn. Ironic that Coca Cola seemed perfectly capable of making a decent diet Cola but they still persist with the vile Diet Coke.
I find that hard to believe. Nobody wants sweetened beer. The only reason that sugar is used in beer is to feed the yeast to make the alcohol. By the time the beer has finished brewing there is virtually no actual sugar left, it has all been converted to alcohol.
If you want less alcohol you might use less sugar I suppose but there is absolutely no point replacing the sugar you left out with artificial sweetener because what you would end up with is beer that tasted like Diet Coke and nobody would want that.
You're right when it comes to simple sugars that the yeast can eat, but there are still a lot of other sugars in there. Complex, longer chain stuff that our bodies can digest perfectly, but yeast can't.
Also it's usually enzymatic starch conversion during the mash, not addition of refined sugar, that is where the sugars come from to feed the yeast. At least in 'real' beer. The temperature of this mashing process determines which enzymes dominate and exactly which sugars are produced by the malt. A slightly higher temperature and you'll get some of the more complex dextrins (IIRC) which is one factors in the varying tastes of beer.
Some styles (milk stout, for instance) do also specifically add in non-fermentable sugars like lactose to sweeten and thicken the brew without making it stronger.
Beer is a complex and wonderful beast :)
Yes, Goat Jam, it's as David says. Myself, I was mainly referring to the growing practice of adding sugars (and alternatives such as aspartame) to some commercial lagers and the like when the brewing process is almost completed and all the fermentation has already happened.
The main reason for this is because demographically, our tastes are gravitating towards sweeter drinks. More women and young people drink beer, for one, and these groups generally don't like too much bitterness and sourness. It fits the general strategy of the big brewing companies, and there are probably other motives involved, like covering up slight inadequacies of the recipe used.
It's similar to how the amount of sugar used in ketchup has gradually increased over the decades.
and after that one, let's ban
α-(5,6-dimethylbenzimidazolyl)cobamidcyanide because it's got cyanide in it so it must be just so terribly dangerous. And then (R)-3,4-dihydroxy-5-((S)- 1,2-dihydroxyethyl)furan-2(5H)-one as well
Oh, hang on, that's Vitamins B12 and C
I think you'll find that chemtrails have been found to be mostly dihydrogen monoxide ... Evil stuff. Causes drownings, and people have died from ingesting it. It has been detected in all the worlds oceans, drinking water supplies and all icecaps. It is in your beer and wine, and all the food you eat.
Will no one think of the chiiiillllddrreenn!
I'd be considerably more worried about the Aspartame in the damned stuff. It's all kinds of shady...
"Aspartame has been controversial since day one. Searle, the manufacturer, had failed to win FDA approval for 16 years and was under investigation for performing fraudulent studies. Aspartame was suddenly approved in 1981 when Donald Rumsfeld, former CEO of Searle and new member of President Ronald Reagan’s transition team, appointed a new FDA commissioner."
When I read about how bad for me something would be /if/ I drank or ate it --- but I don't.
I dislike coke/cola flavour. I get a craving for Sprite or 7-up when I have the flu, and ignore it the rest of the year. The whole fizzy-drink passes me by on the other side of the street.
Wish I could say I didn't poison myself at all, though: sugar addict, I'm afraid, mostly in tea.
Here in the States, the FDA decided that Sucralose is "natural" and now you can even find it in whole wheat bread! The label doesn't have to say "artificially sweetened" and the sucralose is listed at the end in fine print so you might not even see it, or think it says sucrose. Yech.
I am rather curious about where they put the line between safe and unsafe consumption. As I've seen it reported, the safe consumption claimed in this study is up to 6 drinks a week, and the reports didn't specify the size of the drink. That leaves me wondering if the question asked in the survey was something like "Do you drink diet soda every day?"
I really get tired of the entire "American beer is pisswater" bullshit. For example, see:
http://www.mendobrew.com/home.php
http://www.stonebrew.com/beers/
http://www.lagunitas.com/beers/index.html
http://www.avbc.com/main/our-beers/
http://www.dogfish.com/brews-spirits/the-brews/index.htm
27 years ago, my sister's Yorkshire Dales born-and-bred father-in-law proclaimed Red Tail Ale from Mendocino Brewing "The best jar I ever 'ad". He was shocked, to say the least. He had hated "bloody yanks" since WW II, but he's been back to California once or twice a year ever since. They say familiarity breeds contempt, but I find fear of the unknown is far more likely to produce contempt ...
... The likes of "bud light", et alia, are really a tribute to modern manufacturing capability. They are preserved water, no more, and no less. When consumed young, and unmolested, they have no off-flavo(u)rs, and taste the same all over the world (assuming proper storage ... methal mercaptin isn't exctly tasty ...).
Trying to re-create such a thing at home is a serious test of a home-brewer's skill. Don't believe me? Try it. Water, barley, rice, yeast & hops ... how hard can it be? :-)
All I know is, I used to munch my way through a pack of sugar-free (aspartame full) gum each day, and for months I had pains in my back (kidneys area). I put up with it until it got quite bad, then decided to act.
I tried giving up the gum - NO OTHER CHANGES in my life - and within days the pain had gone and hasn't returned since.
I now stick to Xylitol sweetened gum after meals, good for the teeth and is supposed to even have an anti-earache/throat-infection effect too. Pricey, but worth it.
The solution to the issue is that you simply should not overdo things. Trying to stay healthy by fully limiting yourself to "healthy food" isn't good. Just like eating only unhealthy food such as hamburgers and such all the time is likewise an issue.
Simply make sure that you get enough from both sides of the border. There is no problem with eating unhealthy as long as you make sure that you also get plenty of healthy food. Variation to the things you eat is key here. Which also helps you to stay a little healthier.
Still... You know what's also good for your health? Not reading studies like these and as long as you're happy with your current eating habits simply ignore studies like these entirely. One moment its healthy to drink a glass of wine every now and then, and half a year later studies conclude that drinking wine may actually cause heart problems. Only to be "superseded" by another research which determines that wine is actually good for the brains.
Don't listen to studies; listen to what your body is telling you instead.
I think it might just be easier if they all started listing foods and drinks that don't cause cancer / heart attacks / leprosy / scurvy etc. We could have them all stocked at dispenceries in controlled amounts, in case too much or too little is responsible for blindness and immediate death.
Is apple juice (pressed) considered safe still?