Support NeoGAF

[Vigilant Walrus]

First page.

But yes, there were some fearmongering results among the first page.

Nice!


Could this also be related the GMO scare? In my Biology class (Community College) we were going through some articles and had some class debates about how a lot of the anti-GMO establishment was based out of fear due to it being "unnatural".

That was not to say that companies like Monsanto are not the scum of the earth but that the fearmongering is alive and well in those things as well!?

 

[Prozel]

Monster Lo Carb is my best friend.

Diet soda hasn't caused me personally any negative nor postive impact on my life. This is coming from a guy that also could drink 4 liters a days (Same amount of water too actually) and some periods not drink any diet at all (since I can get tired of it).

I actually use it to keep my sweet tooth in check.

 

[Coriolanus]

Nice!


Could this also be related the GMO scare? In my Biology class (Community College) we were going through some articles and had some class debates about how a lot of the anti-GMO establishment was based out of fear due to it being "unnatural".

That was not to say that companies like Monsanto are not the scum of the earth but that the fearmongering is alive and well in those things as well!?

Sadly, yes.

It's the same mindset the anti-vaccine people have, I'm afraid.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Sadly, yes.

It's the same mindset the anti-vaccine people have, I'm afraid.

This is going to sound really dumb, but I'm going to ask anyway; How do I get good at reading scientific journals so I can understand it better? Every time we have those long debates here on GAF about various subjects, I often feel that I don't really understand fully what it is I am linking to. I can read the headline, the bolded highlights and so on, but I can't seem to figure out how to look for the things that make a study seem legit and properly conducted.
For example I have an idea of what double blind placebo tests are but I don't fully understand why they matter so much. But there are so many other things that seems to make people either go damnation or hail-marry on the way a study is conducted.

Is there a standardized way to read and interpretate these kind of research articles across all fields of academia?



TL;DR - How can I learn the tools to read scientific journals with more understanding?

 

[Stumpokapow]

If something ends on "it's not proven, but it is a concern", then it is not a concern.

Fearmongering is bad. Either bring hard data, or just enjoy.

This doesn't actually stand to reason at all. Things do not exist in a binary state of "totally harmless" or "absolutely proven to be harmful". Typically the process for proving something harmful begins with weaker evidence, evidence accumulates, replications occur, longitudinal studies occur, correlational work gives way to causal work, and eventually regulators act to remove stuff. It's true that people shouldn't say "Chemicals are toxic so take my homeopathic cream and remove your fillings to avoid cancer"--I'm not saying this in support of quackery, and there's no shortage of quackery about artificial sweeteners out there--but something can absolutely be an area of concern without yet being proven. There's not one single valid approach to risk-aversion or avoidance. The precautionary principle should certainly be weighed against the costs of action, of course, but that's a judgment for different people to make differently.

Personally, it seems to me like the proposed effects of artificial sweeteners on satiety and appetite are plausible, and while I wouldn't go as far as saying "Artificial sweeteners are bad for you", what I would say is that people should be cautious about concluding that the proposed benefits of diet soda over regular soda (both in terms of caloric reduction and in terms of avoiding sugar in specific) are real. Personally, I don't drink soda, diet or full-calorie.

 

[Coriolanus]

TL;DR - How can I learn the tools to read scientific journals with more understanding?

By having good critical thinking skills.
This is a decent guide, tho.

TBH, you can go a long way just sourcing from places that actually have a history of giving a shit about what they publish, like the BBC and the Guardian. Can still be wrong, but it is considerably unlikely.

Also if a site tries to sell you shit on a specific viewpoint while writing articles that cover that specific viewpoint, you can usually safely discard whatever it says.

Most important part is making sure that your views adapt to the facts, and not that you try to adapt the facts to your views. Sadly, you'll be fighting against human nature there, but practice makes perfect. No shame in finding evidence that proves you wrong. A lotta shame in maintaining your wrong opinion after being confronted with the evidence.

This doesn't actually stand to reason at all. Things do not exist in a binary state of "totally harmless" or "absolutely proven to be harmful". Typically the process for proving something harmful begins with weaker evidence, evidence accumulates, replications occur, longitudinal studies occur, correlational work gives way to causal work, and eventually regulators act to remove stuff. It's true that people shouldn't say "Chemicals are toxic so take my homeopathic cream and remove your fillings to avoid cancer"--I'm not saying this in support of quackery, and there's no shortage of quackery about artificial sweeteners out there--but something can absolutely be an area of concern without yet being proven. There's not one single valid approach to risk-aversion or avoidance. The precautionary principle should certainly be weighed against the costs of action, of course, but that's a judgment for different people to make differently.

Personally, it seems to me like the proposed effects of artificial sweeteners on satiety and appetite are plausible, and while I wouldn't go as far as saying "Artificial sweeteners are bad for you", what I would say is that people should be cautious about concluding that the proposed benefits of diet soda over regular soda (both in terms of caloric reduction and in terms of avoiding sugar in specific) are real. Personally, I don't drink soda, diet or full-calorie.

At which point you'll have data indicating that "tests have shown/indicate, and while further studies are needed, preliminary studies indicate that caution is advised".
When you can't even muster that...yeah.

In the specific example there, it was an asspull, btw.

 

[Kinitari]

Nice!


Could this also be related the GMO scare? In my Biology class (Community College) we were going through some articles and had some class debates about how a lot of the anti-GMO establishment was based out of fear due to it being "unnatural".

That was not to say that companies like Monsanto are not the scum of the earth but that the fearmongering is alive and well in those things as well!?

You should challenge even this view.

 

[slit]

This doesn't actually stand to reason at all. Things do not exist in a binary state of "totally harmless" or "absolutely proven to be harmful". Typically the process for proving something harmful begins with weaker evidence, evidence accumulates, replications occur, longitudinal studies occur, correlational work gives way to causal work, and eventually regulators act to remove stuff. It's true that people shouldn't say "Chemicals are toxic so take my homeopathic cream and remove your fillings to avoid cancer"--I'm not saying this in support of quackery, and there's no shortage of quackery about artificial sweeteners out there--but something can absolutely be an area of concern without yet being proven. There's not one single valid approach to risk-aversion or avoidance. The precautionary principle should certainly be weighed against the costs of action, of course, but that's a judgment for different people to make differently.

Personally, it seems to me like the proposed effects of artificial sweeteners on satiety and appetite are plausible, and while I wouldn't go as far as saying "Artificial sweeteners are bad for you", what I would say is that people should be cautious about concluding that the proposed benefits of diet soda over regular soda (both in terms of caloric reduction and in terms of avoiding sugar in specific) are real. Personally, I don't drink soda, diet or full-calorie.

But it is a caloric reduction. I don't think that can be disputed.

 

[TheContact]

But it is a caloric reduction. I don't think that can be disputed.

1 calorie in a soda vs a diet soda is not the same. Not all calories are equal.

 

[V_Arnold]

1 calorie in a soda vs a diet soda is not the same. Not all calories are equal.

Uhm.....
Diet soda contains no calories.

 

[slit]

1 calorie in a soda vs a diet soda is not the same. Not all calories are equal.

Bull, and besides no matter how slice it <5 calories will in no way equal 180 - 280 calories a bottle.

 

[way more]

These kinds of things tend to be oversimplified.

Of course serious research and corresponding studies are needed to scientifically prove ANYTHING related to long term health effects of a particular product BUT, studies of that scale need FUNDING, and who the hell has a) the money and b) the motivation to fund a study that would show the adverse affects of something like aspartame in foods?

i'm not even opening the lobby can of worms here but yeah, it's not as simple as saying "well there aren't any studies showing it's harmful so it's safe".

Just be careful what you eat and drink and use reason i guess...

Be afraid, never research anything, and above all else never trust peer-reviewed studies, but most of all use reason when choosing to ignore the scientific method.

 

[ZQQLANDER]

Dude...I'd be worried about your kidneys. 4 liters of anything is a huge strain. Isn't the recommended dose of water eight 8 ounce glasses? That's a little less than 2 liters of water.

You are drinking 2x that.....in soda......

 

[Anarion07]

Dude...I'd be worried about your kidneys. 4 liters of anything is a huge strain. Isn't the recommended dose of water eight 8 ounce glasses? That's a little less than 2 liters of water.

You are drinking 2x that.....in soda......

Nope 4 litres of water a day are absolutely no problem for your kidney.
I drink 5-6 litres a day, it all depends on the time frame over which you're consuming it.
Your kidney processes something like 180 litres of fluid a day, so 2 litres more dont really make that much of a difference

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

The total calories consumed by overweight and obese adults who drank diet beverages, however, were similar to that of those who drank sugary beverages. Heavier adults who drank diet beverages tended to eat more calories in the form of solid food. Overweight and obese adults who drank diet beverages consumed 88 and 194 more calories from solid foods per day, respectively, than those who drank sugared beverages.

To understand these differences in solid-food intake, the scientists took a closer look at patterns of solid-food consumption. Notably, obese adults who consumed diet drinks ate significantly more snacks than those who had sugared drinks. Those who drank diet beverages consumed 131 calories per day in salty snacks and 243 in sweet snacks, compared to 107 and 213, respectively, for obese adults who drank sugared drinks.

&#8220;The results of our study suggest that overweight and obese adults looking to lose or maintain their weight&#8212;who have already made the switch from sugary to diet beverages&#8212;may need to look carefully at other components of their solid-food diet, particularly sweet snacks, to potentially identify areas for modification,&#8221; Bleich says.

From the NIH, Diet Beverages and Body Weight

There are several hypothesis for this. One is that diet drinks are especially sweet and don't have that satiety.

The other is rationalizing the "zero calories" to warrant a greater consumption of junk food. You have diet coke with more food rather than less, because the individual is not counting the soda calories.

I'm more inclined to believe the latter than former. We are easily manipulated. Just look at plating size and what it does to our satiety.

 

[Pixels]

When I was drinking 4 cans a day many years ago I would start to get weird headaches and queezy feelings. Also I lost a lot of enamel on my teeth.

 

[onken]

I usually have a single can with lunch on weekdays and was thinking that was maybe too much... holy shit.

 

[Sora_N]

I barely drink any soda, but I do once or twice a week at most or if I grab some fast food meals.

I can't imagine anyone drinking 4L of that crap, diet or not.

 

[ZQQLANDER]

Nope 4 litres of water a day are absolutely no problem for your kidney.
I drink 5-6 litres a day, it all depends on the time frame over which you're consuming it.
Your kidney processes something like 180 litres of fluid a day, so 2 litres more dont really make that much of a difference

Really? Damn.

 

[Apath]

I no longer buy soda. If it's in the fridge, I'll have at least one can a day just because of the convenience. Not stocking soda forces me to drink a lot of water and tea, with some milk and the occasional juice.

It's not difficult to stop.

 

[M3d10n]

I quit drinking soda over 10 years ago because I'm a cheap bastard (my meals became a lot cheaper without any drinks). Now I absolutely despise the taste. I also think aspartame tastes vile. My taste buds simply don't register that as anywhere close to "sweet". Whenever I drink tea or fruit juices, I just don't put sugar, period.

 

[Omnii-chan]

I maybe have one can every fortnight when I feel like something a bit bubbly. Going through a large pack quick is rather frightening to me, OP.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I quit drinking soda over 10 years ago because I'm a cheap bastard (my meals became a lot cheaper without any drinks). Now I absolutely despise the taste. I also think aspartame tastes vile. My taste buds simply don't register that as anywhere close to "sweet". Whenever I drink tea or fruit juices, I just don't put sugar, period.

You sound like me. Sugar is vile and its substitutes taste like poison.
My family used to have kool aid every meal and my mom made it from those little packets without adding any sugar. The first time I had kool aid with sugar, I almost threw up.

 

[Davey Cakes]

From the NIH, Diet Beverages and Body Weight

There are several hypothesis for this. One is that diet drinks are especially sweet and don't have that satiety.

The other is rationalizing the "zero calories" to warrant a greater consumption of junk food. You have diet coke with more food rather than less, because the individual is not counting the soda calories.

I'm more inclined to believe the latter than former. We are easily manipulated. Just look at plating size and what it does to our satiety.

I really don't believe the "diet drinks don't have the satiety" thing, but I'm only going from personal experience. Once I finish a diet soda I'm pretty darn satisfied.