Diet Sodas May Be Tied To Stroke, Dementia Risk (cnn.com) 223
Gulping down an artificially sweetened beverage not only may be associated with health risks for your body, but also possibly your brain, a new study suggests. From a report: Artificially sweetened drinks, such as diet sodas, were tied to a higher risk of stroke and dementia in the study, which published in the American Heart Association's journal Stroke on Thursday. The study sheds light only on an association, as the researchers were unable to determine an actual cause-and-effect relationship between sipping artificially sweetened drinks and an increased risk for stroke and dementia. Therefore, some experts caution that the findings should be interpreted carefully. No connection was found between those health risks and other sugary beverages, such as sugar-sweetened sodas, fruit juice and fruit drinks.
Huh? What? (Score:5, Insightful)
the researchers were unable to determine an actual cause-and-effect relationship between sipping artificially sweetened drinks and an increased risk for stroke and dementia
In other words, the headline is worthless click-bait. This is not a "study", it's a statistical analysis of a database set that proves nothing at all by itself.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, the headline is worthless click-bait
Yes, this is not much more than the hundreds of "This Is What Trump May Do Now" headlines seen shortly after his inauguration.
If it contains "May", it is nothing but speculation. This is not science, and definitely not newsworthy.
Re: (Score:2)
The headlines are written by journalists and are click-bait. The scientific journal article itself has the title "Sugar- and Artificially Sweetened Beverages and the Risks of Incident Stroke and Dementia". That's not click-bait. It's typical of scientific modesty.
Science doesn't ever prove things; it just provides evidence. There is always a "May" in a scientific conclusion. Over additional studies, evidence can either corroborate or contradict previous evidence, and we can make that "May" stronger or weake
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand how science is done. I also understand that while this suggests an appropriate avenue for further research, it's essentially meaningless by itself. Sure, green jelly beans may cause acne. But probably not. (Google if you don't get the reference but if you don't, what the hell are you doing reading this web site?)
Re:Huh? What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Why take the possible risk? Diet soft drinks taste like crap if you haven't had one for a few weeks, and they may make you stupid. Regular soft drinks definitely make you fat.
Mind you, if you get dementia, you won't give a shit. Pick your poison.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely how is this not science? A study suggests a link. This will lead to further studies to determine whether the link is causative, and if so, what possible mechanisms are involved?
If it is science, it is superlatively bad science. I already addressed this above, but the short version is no distinction is made between the different sweeteners, which have different chemical compositions, and if you look at the article, there is no reference to weight or obesity, which other studies have linked those to artificial sweeteners. in turn there are links between obesity and stroke. Apparently one of the biggest risk factors is ignored.
Now those studies that link artificial sweeteners to o
Re: (Score:2)
The article doesn't reference weight or obesity directly, but it does reference BMI, waist/hip ratio, and cholesterol, which are more quantitatively meaningful ways of controlling for obesity.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I, for one, don't believe this study at... what were we talking about? Chickens? Yes, I had some chickens when I was a child, one was called Lucy she used to, oh it's wonderful weather today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a "study", it's a statistical analysis of a database set that proves nothing at all by itself.
That's called a study. Science, unlike math, doesn't prove things. It does give you a good reason to do more studies to try to understand the relationship better.
Re: (Score:2)
There won't be more studies. The goal was to create a headline that people would remember. Mission accomplished. We're done here.
Re:Huh? What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which sweetener was tested?
IIRC aspartame was initially developed to be a drug for alzheimer's... but it was noticed that it tasted sweet, so it was marketed as an artificial sweetener.
which... Kinda lends credence to this story.
What about sucralose?
Or Sodium saccharin?
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
I drink Diet Double Dew - it's got half the calories of regular Double Dew!
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The only one that's close.
Re: (Score:3)
It suggests a link.
No it doesn't. It's just some dweeb massaging a dataset until he gets the results he was after.
Re:Huh? What? (Score:5, Insightful)
It suggests a link. It will take further study to determine whether there is actual causation or whether other factors may be involved.
It's almost like you don't know how science works.
Agreed, but I'm even skeptical about the entire study. Remember - we live in an age where cane sugar is considered healthy. Micro, non angry rant follows.
What is remarkable about this study is that apparently every single artificial sweetener has exactly the same association with stroke and dementia.
This is truly groundbreaking, because different artificial sweeteners have wildly different compositions.
Stevia, aspartame, sucralose, neotame, acesulfame potassium, saccharin, and advantame, Cyclamates, allulose, monk fruit, Sorbitol and xylitol. All artificial, and every single one is associated with stroke and dementia. I left out lead acetate because not many people think that is safe at all - although in the anti science age, perhaps the deniers want to try it.
Back to the study, and lest I be accused of being sarcastic, the researchers are very, very clear about this. To wit:
After adjustments for age, sex, education (for analysis of dementia), caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease dementia. When comparing daily cumulative intake to 0 per week (reference), the hazard ratios were 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.26–6.97) for ischemic stroke and 2.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.18–7.07) for Alzheimer’s disease. Sugar-sweetened beverages were not associated with stroke or dementia.
There is no distinction between the different types of artificial sweeteners, therefore they tested all of them. And sugar sweetened beverages ha no association. Which apparently means both sucrose and corn syrup.
This sounds like a study where we might want to look into the money path, because the abstract is so remarkably bad that it is difficult to put much credence into any of it, and the skeptic in me finds some groups with a financial interest in the "results" might have a profit motive.
Re: (Score:2)
What is remarkable about this study is that apparently every single artificial sweetener has exactly the same association with stroke and dementia.
The study doesn't claim that!
Re:Huh? What? (Score:4, Informative)
Stevia is not artificial.
Re: (Score:3)
What if the common factor is that all of these artificial sweeteners stimulate the "sweet taste" centers of the brain but don't supply any energy? So then one part of your system says, "hey sugar coming" but the pancreas says "no dummy, this ain't sugar". They then proceed to duke it out, smashing bottles and breaking chairs all over the circulatory system.
It could be like virtual reality. Driving a car doesn't make you sick because your eyes and your balance system provide congruent information. Now pu
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Stevia, Xylitol, and Monk Fruit are not artificial. there are probably some others on your list too but these were the ones I knew of offhand.
I suppose it depends on how you classify natural. Looking up how Stevia is made you put the leaves of the plant in hot water, then pas it through a resin, which traps the glycosides, after which you wash it with alcohol, then heat it to remove the alcohol.
It's natural in the same way that cocaine is natural.
As a side note, Stevia is a member of the chrysanthemum family, which is the source of pyrethrum insecticide. Also a natural substance.
Here's a link about the different alternative sweeteners https [cspinet.org]
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Do we really need to see more garbage science on /.?
Yes. garbage science needs pointed out, and demolished at every possible juncture. The people who believe it need to be rhetorically and unmercifully hammered when they start to spout their nonsense.
This is how we root out the charlatans. By following the money trail and sponsors of anti- AGW "science", and exposing their cherry picking; by going after corrupt researchers and their anti-vaxxing message, and the "Eat this and be healthy" industry, and by pointing out egregious wrongs (hopefully errors) i
Personal Anecdatum - sample size of one (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now I don't say that this didn't happen to you but there is a ward study where 40 subjects who made the similar claims (i.e that they got headaches every time they consumed aspartame) where given either placebo or the amount of aspartame as would be in 4 litres of soda. 45% of the people who got placebo got a headache while 35% in the aspartame group got a headache.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3657889
Re: (Score:2)
The one of the points of medical research is to discover unknown risks associated with various activities
But this wasn't a clinical study. It was cherry picking data from a database to try and find a correlation. Notice what they adjusted for, or more importantly what they didn't adjust for - obesity. Also, their confidence intervals aren't very convincing. I expect that someone else could look at the same data and show there is no correlation at all.
Results—After adjustments for age, sex, education (for analysis of dementia), caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking
Something doesn't sound right... (Score:4, Interesting)
"They also found that those who drank one a day were nearly three times as likely to be diagnosed with dementia."
"Those who drank one to six artificially sweetened beverages a week were 2.6 times as likely to experience an ischemic stroke but were no more likely to develop dementia"
So if you drink six a week, there's no change to risk of dementia, but somehow the seventh triples your risk?
Re:Something doesn't sound right... (Score:5, Informative)
These are two distinct groups:
Crossing from group A into group B doesn't magically triple your risk, but group B, collectively, has a much higher risk.
Because group B does not have a cap, (7 to infinity sodas), it's intuitive that the collective risk jumps dramatically. That group includes people who are drinking a fucking ridiculous amount of diet soda.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If they are drinking caffeinated sodas (can't be bothered to look up the study, which is probably worthless weakly correlated crap anyway and as for the click-bait link - fuck it up its stupid ass) - 24/7 caffeine intake might be causing them continuous inadequate rest and sleeping disorders, causing increased mental and physical stress.
Not to mention that the cause of so much caffeine might be workplace stress, compounding the effects.
Working oneself into an early grave IS after all tied to stroke, dementi
That's not really a statistic (Score:2, Interesting)
"We studied 2888 participants aged >45 years for incident stroke (mean age 62 [SD, 9] years; 45% men) and 1484 participants aged >60 years for incident dementia (mean age 69 [SD, 6] years; 46% men). Beverage intake was quantified using a food-frequency questionnaire at cohort examinations 5 (1991–1995), 6 (1995–1998), and 7 (1998–2001). We quantified recent consumption at examination 7 and cumulative consumption by averaging across examinations. Surveillance for incident events comme
Re:That's not really a statistic (Score:5, Insightful)
Need no studies for this... (Score:2, Redundant)
Sponsors? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
false, 2-8% of sucralose consumed is metabolized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
How can an artificial sweetener that is not absorbed by the body, like sucralose, have any physical effect, unless the brain hates being tricked and is getting even.
Nailed it. From Wash U med school [wustl.edu]:
Basically, the part of your digestive tract that identifies incoming sugar and triggers an insulin release can't tell the difference between sugar and sweet
Re: (Score:2)
The connection could simply be that people who drink sugary drinks all the time die of obesity- and diabetes-related complications before they get a stroke or dementia.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an unavoidable consequence that I have never seen addressed by anyone suggesting such a mechanism exists.
If insulin was released in response to diet soda, then dieters (and fasters) drinking diet sodas would know it immediately (and it could be dangerous).
While I can accept that some sweeteners may have unknown effects, the way it is presented wrt insulin is consistently BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, the part of your digestive tract that identifies incoming sugar and triggers an insulin release can't tell the difference between sugar and sweeteners.
No, the beta cells in your pancreas sense how much glucose is in your blood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Otherwise, people who consume artificial sweeteners would get hypoglycemic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In a small study, the researchers analyzed the sweetener sucralose (Splenda®) in 17 severely obese people
They only looked at sucralose, They only looked at 17 people, with an average BMI of 42. Also, the subjects didn't just consume sucralose, they had sucralose + a ton of glucose.
You'd be stupid to extrapolate the results of this study to metabolism of normal healthy people with normal eating habits.
published by respected med schools.
And often funded by industry with hidden agendas.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a legitimate criticism? I mean, if you take a healthy person and bang them with a load of insulin they're not going to become hypoglycemic, especially with the absence of a load of actual glucose for the insulin?
If you have a well-understood cause-effect and you claim the cause is there don't you have to explain the lack of a reaction for similar causes?
Re: (Score:2)
This is right, of course. However, the OP is imagining there there is some sort of digestive tract "taste buds" mechanism separate from that because the article is suggesting it. Of course, the consequences would be the same...dire.
Re: (Score:2)
"Basically, the part of your digestive tract that identifies incoming sugar and triggers an insulin release can't tell the difference between sugar and sweeteners."
Funny how "it" can't but but everyone else can when it comes to taste. ;)
Incidentally, that article offers no proof that there IS a "part of your digestive tract that identifies sugar and triggers an insulin release", it merely suggests that such a mechanism may exist and it may possibly affect hormone levels, including insulin. It also acknowl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Follow the Money" (Score:2)
Has anybody looked at who FUNDED this "study"?... could it have been https://www.sugar.org/ [sugar.org] ???
For example, people have been trying to demonize Aspertame for YEARS.
But the American Cancer Society finds no ill effects https://www.cancer.org/cancer/... [cancer.org]
There are other examples if you search.
Read the main article. (Score:2)
NOTHING has been proved. Not even "may be tied".
They took a sample of old people and separated those who drank artificially sweetened drinks not taking anything else in consideration - lifestyle, diets, etc.
It's weak correlation that could end up disproven in the long run. This is not something worth publishing.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, they also found a correlation between strokes and diabetes, plus they found a correlation between diabetes and artificial sweetener consumption.
So, most likely, it goes like this: people eat too much carbs, they develop diabetes, and the diabetes causes stroke. At the same time, their doctor tells them they are diabetic, and should switch to diet soda.
demographics (Score:2)
Maybe more older people are wisely avoided sugared soft drinks and drinking the diet sodas but have the increased risk of dementia and stroke purely because of age.
My father drinks diet drinks, he's 75. I'll let everyone know when the poisonous effects kick in. My dead grandma also drank them and she was cut down at the tender young age of 90 by the artificial chemicals causing fatal stroke
Which one? (Score:2)
There's almost a half-dozen common artificial sweeteners on the market right now. Are they saying they're all bad or just a particular one? Maybe some of them? Was this research funded by the sugar industry? They're the new tobacco industry [sugarcoateddoc.com], after all. If you think this is a propaganda movie, think about the tobacco industry fifty years ago. And search for "sugar industry lies", plenty of facts out there.
diet soda is just correlation (Score:2)
Sugar avoidance in youth leads to reality avoidance in old age. There's the causation! Maybe.
Tea is the Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
This story is probably relevant to /. because I've known many coders who suck down sugar soda or Aspartame soda like no tomorrow. Having followed the dementia research I put it to ya'll that a nice hot cup of tea most probably the best way to a slake thirst and keep those neurons chugging away. A bit of cream or sugar is just fine. There is a growing body of evidence correlating Alzheimers/Dementia to diabetes and metabolic imbalance and our choice of drinks is likely to be a contributing factor. Plus it is so civilized.
The wrong order (Score:3)
The dementia lead to drinking diet soda, not the other way around.
Doesn't mean much but .... (Score:2)
It seems like the artificial sweeteners have been implicated as potential health threats for various reasons over the years. IMO, it's very possible that at least a few of them really do have negative side effects.
I agree with the people who questioned why you'd drink diet soda anyway? It always has a weird chemical aftertaste. Yes, like most things, you can get used to it after a while. But why bother? There's nothing redeeming, health-wise, about drinking a soda -- so it has no upsides there. Seems like
Sshhhh... (Score:2)
Correlation = Causation (Score:2)
Correlation does not equal causation.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't imply they implied it.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't imply they implied it.
Did he really imply that implicative implication?
Re: (Score:2)
You can manipulate statistics to show a link between just about any pair of variables. Massage this. Try a dozen different formulas to calculate significance. And tada! You have the link you were digging for.
The article I read about this study this morning stated: "But after accounting for all lifestyle factors, the researchers found the link to dementia was statistically insignificant." Despite their best efforts, I'm
Re: (Score:2)
And the researchers acknowledge that by saying they don't have a mechanism. Once again, a link has been found. Whether that link turns to be some sort of co-factor, and there is no direct link between diet pop and strokes and dementia, is something further research will determine.
But damage has been done. As the conclusion of the abstract notes:
Conclusions—Artificially sweetened soft drink consumption was associated with a higher risk of stroke and dementia.
That's all that 99.9 percent of people will look at, and accept as the truth.
As for further research, that really helped in counteracting the deliberate lie of the Anti-Vaxxer researcher and his lawyer buddy and their plan to fleece "Big Pharma" buy banking on sympathy for children, no?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And wheatgrass.
Yes, that stuff that cows eat and humans can't digest.
Re: (Score:2)
"And wheatgrass.
Yes, that stuff that cows eat and humans can't digest."
The 'not digesting' is sort of the point that you missed.
Re: (Score:2)
slim people drink juice cleanse blends.
Not everyone is Asian.
Re: (Score:3)
But lots of people do live in California, including a lot of Asians, a lot of obese people, and a lot of people who follow shitty Hollywood-style "cleanse" fads.
He referred to slim people with his generalization.
You referred to Asians with yours.
His was less inaccurate.
Re:Oops (Score:5, Insightful)
it's drunk by fat people.
You're going to need some real data to back that up. All the 'normal' sized people I know who drink soda drink diet soda.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But, the "normal" person today, is pretty much obese as compared to someone as recent as maybe 20 years ago or so....
But heaven forbid you say that to people....you cannot "fat shame" people, and everyone is to feel good about themselves.
Hence, overweight is now the accepted new normal.
While that might help peoples' self image, it won't ever help their physical health.
Re: (Score:2)
But, the "normal" person today, is pretty much obese as compared to someone as recent as maybe 20 years ago or so....
I'm a big guy at 350 pounds (think football player [sportingcharts.com]), but I'm always astonished to see people who are bigger than me.
Re: (Score:2)
[...]gained most of their weight through fast food[...]
I haven't eaten fast food in 10+ years.
[...] posts on Internet forums in most of their free time.
I only post on Slashdot while waiting for a script to get finish at work.
And who plans to shoot people who disagree with him.
Thanks to asshats like you, I'm on target to make extra $50+ in ad revenues for my blog this month.
https://www.kickingthebitbucket.com/tag/slashdot/ [kickingthebitbucket.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The trick is to drink nothing but Mountain Dew High Voltage, eat nothing but Pizza, Chips (Doritos Especially), and Lays' Ranch dip. Throw in jerky for added protein, and cigarettes for added appetite.
I don't recommend the Supersize Me diet for weight training. You sound like a pregnant woman when working out in the gym. Neither the guys nor the gays will be impressed by your screaming.
Re: (Score:2)
...you cannot "fat shame" people,
You can. My mother does it to me all the time.
However she doesn't do it to anyone else, and no one else does it to me (to my face).
See how it works?
Re: (Score:2)
You can. My mother does it to me all the time.
I'm often accused of "slim-shaming" people when I eat 25% of a 1,200-calorie plate, and take the rest home to make into three additional meals.
Re: (Score:2)
...you cannot "fat shame" people,
You can. My mother does it to me all the time.
However she doesn't do it to anyone else, and no one else does it to me (to my face).
See how it works?
WHY YOU SO FAT?
Have you eaten yet? Sit down and eat. Eat more. What do you mean you're not hungry? Eat! Eat!
WHY YOU SO FAT?
Re: (Score:2)
The data is in this study. Higher BMI is correlated with increased consumption of artificially sweetened drinks.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. There's a lot of skepticism here [sciencemediacentre.org]. When you factor in confounding factors:
The study appears to be an excellent example of the reverse causality effect. For example, let's say I was doing a study on on the effects of taking a heart medication on heart attacks. So I randomly collect thousands of people and study their incidence of he
Re: (Score:2)
Like my Dad who is currently in the nursing home dying from alzheimers.
Re: (Score:3)
it's drunk by fat people.
You're going to need some real data to back that up. All the 'normal' sized people I know who drink soda drink diet soda.
My anecdotal response to your anecdote is that I mainly see obese people drinking diet soda... along with entire pizzas, supersized fries, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that someone who is drinking pizza has gone too far.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it is just a semantic argument, because when I hear someone is a soda drinker I assume at least a few sodas a week, if not an average of at least one per day. I guess that should be called a regular soda drinker instead of just a soda drinker.
And to the OP's point, every regular soda drinker I know that I can think of who is not obese almost exclusively drinks diet sodas. It is just too hard to consume an extra 150-300 calories per day via drinks and still be in good shape.
It does seem as though overweight people tend to *always* be drinking diet soda, though.
Certainly most people drin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not even that. This is just another "study" by somebody with an agenda against sweeteners.
There's no data, no evidence, just a guy manipulating numbers with excel until he finds a result he likes.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no data, no evidence, just a guy manipulating numbers with excel until he finds a result he likes.
Torture the data until they confess.
Re:Oops (Score:5, Insightful)
facepalm
That's not how science works. A lot of studies do turn out to be false, but that's not because some guy is fudging numbers. It does happen sometimes, but it's a serious allegation, and for you to simply dismiss a peer reviewed study without evidence puts you in the anti-science crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet there are several problems with the study.
First, it's difficult to peer inside the data and establish if the artificially sweetened beverage drinkers had high A1C or other metabolic markers. It says, cautiously, that sugary vs artificially-sweetened beverages seem to cause higher incidence of cardio-vascular problems, citing strokes, etc.
Then, no specific artificial sweetener was identified as being consumed to establish sucralose vs many other sweeteners as a possible culprit. Just "sweeteners"
There ar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"No connection was found between those health risks and other sugary beverages, such as sugar-sweetened sodas, fruit juice and fruit drinks."
"Fat people", as you lovingly refer to diet soda drinkers, also drink beverages for which no connection was found. Sorry, but your comments aren't so insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Did you even read the study before criticizing it? My guess is no. The study does take into account "waist/hip ratio", which is similar for the sugar soda and diet soda groups, among other parameters.
Re: (Score:2)
But the diet soda drinkers were more likely to have diabetes (9% diabetes among the people drinking 0 diet soda, and 26% among those drinking 1+/day)
Most likely, these people were drinking regular soda, got diabetes, and then switched to diet soda. The diabetes was damaging the blood vessels and leading to stroke and dementia.
Re: (Score:2)
But the diet soda drinkers were more likely to have diabetes (9% diabetes among the people drinking 0 diet soda, and 26% among those drinking 1+/day)
Most likely, these people were drinking regular soda, got diabetes, and then switched to diet soda. The diabetes was damaging the blood vessels and leading to stroke and dementia.
As you allude to, those cited statistics are meaningless. We would at least need to know how the percentage compares to those drinking 1+ non-diet sodas. Of course even more importantly we would need to see the figures when adjusted for eating habits, exercise levels, and prior drinking habits.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it 7% among people drinking 0 diet soda and 22% among those drinking 1+/day?
I'm looking at the DM n (%) row of table 1.
Anyways, that's a good criticism of the study. Other posters' criticisms were not so good. Please understand that I am not defending the study. I am defending the scientific method. I have no expectation that the study is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Sugar raises blood pressure. High blood pressure causes capillaries to burst. The heal, but at the cost of a few surrounding cells. High blood pressure would also push more water into the brain cavity, causing loss of brain tissue.
Re: (Score:3)
24 cans (Score:4, Interesting)
So don't drink more than 24 cans of Diet Coke a day (125mg) or 52 cans of Diet Mountain Dew (57mg).
Good to know
Re: 24 cans (Score:2)
If you consumed 24 cans of Diet Mtn Dew or Diet Pepsi per day, you'd spend the NEXT day with horrific, explosive diarrhea and a pounding caffeine-withdrawal headache... assuming you didn't die from cardiac arrest first. At the VERY least, the cardiac arrhythmia would be pretty unpleasant. 24 cans has about 1.2 KILOGRAMS of caffeine (24 cans * 50mg/can).
Re: (Score:2)
24 cans has about 1.2 KILOGRAMS of caffeine (24 cans * 50mg/can).
Without doing the math, I can see that must be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Soda pop is poison. You don't need a study to prove that. There are only four safe drinks in this world. Water, milk, orange juice, and beer. Wait, there are only five safe drinks in this world. Water, milk, orange juice, wine and beer.
Actually, you have to cross milk off that list as well. Not only bad for you, but racist to drink milk.
Re: (Score:3)
Soda pop is poison. You don't need a study to prove that. There are only four safe drinks in this world. Water, milk, orange juice, and beer. Wait, there are only five safe drinks in this world. Water, milk, orange juice, wine and beer.
You forgot butter. There's nothing like a nice hot mug of butter to start your day.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a bunch of sweateners used.
Please pay attention. We are discussing chemicals that make sodas artificially taste sugary, not chemicals that make you artificially perspire.