Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ColoNoCoHusker

Studies, click-bait, oh my!

Recommended Posts

 

 

There is no evidence that "diet" soda is bad for you. None.

 

http://examine.com/faq/is-diet-soda-bad-for-you.html

 

Even the article contradicts your statement.

 

The article states there are "no studies that indicate any long-term health risks". There are plenty of documented & established health risks with diet soda. Faster eroding of tooth enamel & stomach lining are two off the top the of my head... Also off memory, Aspartame has been causally linked to trigger cluster headaches (more debilitating than migraines) and has been established as a trigger for auto-immune disease responses such as pemphigus (if i recall correctly).

 

There is evidence it is bad for you. Is it worse than anything else, such as regular soda? That is TBD...

 

Can you point to some good studies that show that diet soda leads to faster tooth enamel eroding and stomach lining, than, say, coffee or anything else? Ones with control groups, good sample size, etc.

 

Also, would like to see a reputable study on these "headaches". I do know that a very small percentage of the population report headaches, but so did people with MSG and that was proven to just not be the case. They essentially made it up.

 

The OP has much bigger fish to fry then futzing over diet soda.

 

 

I don't want to hijack this thread but if you create a new one to discuss, I will be happy to participate.

 

If this is your requirement, the examine site you reference routinely violates this. Randomly looking at a few articles, they routinely give an A (robust research w/ multiple double blind...) to a group of research that is purely data analysis. The articles are also inconsistent in their reader/editor bias. Not saying the site is bad, just identifying it doesn't live up to your measure...

 

EDIT: Removed comment that maybe sounded more rude/terse than I intended... I enjoy the dialogue and your points. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

There is no evidence that "diet" soda is bad for you. None.

 

http://examine.com/faq/is-diet-soda-bad-for-you.html

 

Even the article contradicts your statement.

 

The article states there are "no studies that indicate any long-term health risks". There are plenty of documented & established health risks with diet soda. Faster eroding of tooth enamel & stomach lining are two off the top the of my head... Also off memory, Aspartame has been causally linked to trigger cluster headaches (more debilitating than migraines) and has been established as a trigger for auto-immune disease responses such as pemphigus (if i recall correctly).

 

There is evidence it is bad for you. Is it worse than anything else, such as regular soda? That is TBD...

 

Can you point to some good studies that show that diet soda leads to faster tooth enamel eroding and stomach lining, than, say, coffee or anything else? Ones with control groups, good sample size, etc.

 

Also, would like to see a reputable study on these "headaches". I do know that a very small percentage of the population report headaches, but so did people with MSG and that was proven to just not be the case. They essentially made it up.

 

The OP has much bigger fish to fry then futzing over diet soda.

 

 

I don't want to hijack this thread but if you create a new one to discuss, I will be happy to participate.

 

If this is your requirement, the examine site you reference routinely violates this. Randomly looking at a few articles, they routinely give an A (robust research w/ multiple double blind...) to a group of research that is purely data analysis. The articles are also inconsistent in their reader/editor bias. Not saying the site is bad, just identifying it doesn't live up to your measure...

 

EDIT: Removed comment that maybe sounded more rude/terse than I intended... I enjoy the dialogue and your points. ;)

 

They're something to be said for data analysis and providing information for someone to make their own decision. They do a good job of providing information and some qualified opinion, but I don't look to it for absolute answers because there rarely are any absolute answers.

 

There are just varying degrees of certainty.

 

Further more the stuff that we'd like to see good studies on may never exist. Either for logistical reasons or just because there's no large interest in studying the topic. So, the best information is sometimes just meta analysis.

 

But that's different than click-bait article that cherry pick results and, really, just want you to read their crappy article to get a few clicks.

 

I, for one, use the data at examine and make my own decisions. That's what I'm suggesting. Some of the data is pretty telling, though, like the diet soda stuff. You can't read that analysis and say that diet soda is proven to have side effects worth discussing. Let alone side effects that would affect weight loss.

 

If the guy drinks diet soda and can control his intake sufficiently, he will lose weight. It doesn't matter one bit if he can control his intake.

 

Now if for some reason he's an outlier and drinking diet soda makes him go on large ravenous binges then, no, he probably should abstain. I don't think is likely though. It's just information that is distracting from what matters most.

 

Really, the best answers in this thread are ones that revolve around watching overall caloric load and moving more. That's the long and short of it. Sure, the other "life hacks" that some of us suggest work, but they typically only work because they help drive compliance with your calorie or macro goals. Everyone has these hacks and they're fine but there's no real magic with them. Not eating breakfast, or eating a crap load of protein, low carb (ketosis aside), etc. I think they all just help drive compliance in certain populations for a myriad of reasons.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<Insert sarcastic personal attack here> ;)

 

Don't disagree with any of that... Not real sure where to go with this :)

 

I guess I disagree about good medical evidence of diet soda having negative side effects...

 

 

EDIT:

 

You can't read that analysis and say that diet soda is proven to have side effects worth discussing. Let alone side effects that would affect weight loss.

 

As far as diet soda affecting weight loss, I would agree. I am confused by the first statement though.

 

Your original statement was:

 

 

There is no evidence that "diet" soda is bad for you. None.

 

The article references bad side effects of diet soda, discounts other research, and ignores a large body of work.

 

You then set the requirement for "good studies" being:

 

 

Ones with control groups, good sample size, etc.

 

And then you state:

 

 

the best information is sometimes just meta analysis.

 

Meta analysis & systemic research don't have control groups and sample size is existing research which may be large or small. I can post a bunch links comparing diet soda's effect to crack, meth, bulimia; the effect on pH levels on tooth enamel, stomach & esophageal lining; research on aspartame's side effects. It seems like the target is moving a bit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can go wherever we like with it ;) I guess it comes down to what research you're willing to put some time into and what you're not. That's where we differ.

 

My original statement should have been something like "I wouldn't concern yourself with diet soda on your weight loss journey. There are bigger fish to fry". My mistake.

 

It just irks me when people bring this stuff up out of no where, then point to a random article written by someone who read an abstract. It just irks me to no end when I see the spread of half information.

 

With regard to half information, some stuff out there deserves to be discounted, you know. Examine would discount a study if it saw it as being flawed enough to not consider it. That's perfectly fine with me. It may not be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just trying to figure out what was up for debate. I'm happy to research when there's a differing opinion but that seems to have evaporated... Motivation can be fickle ;)

 

Agree, a LOT of stuff deserves to be discounted. Only time I take issue with that is when it's not upfront... or I disagree with it ;)

 

We did a project to build an application that "scores" research related authors/sources. It was a really cool piece of software with huge promise. It would have been very useful but it got shelved because the people with the lowest scores tended to be some of the most known/published... Only way we could get the scores to match "prestige" was to ignore accuracy or data integrity rules. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We did a project to build an application that "scores" research related authors/sources. It was a really cool piece of software with huge promise. It would have been very useful but it got shelved because the people with the lowest scores tended to be some of the most known/published... Only way we could get the scores to match "prestige" was to ignore accuracy or data integrity rules. ;)

That's messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×