• echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

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

      • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        • wolfshadowheart@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        11 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 months 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months 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.

            • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months 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.

        • Fermion@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months 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.

    • visor841@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months 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.

      • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months 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. :)

    • visor841@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 months 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.