So people who drink coffee are doubly impacted due to the acrylamide and the sugar.
Not quite. They're supposed to be drinking coffee without sugar.
Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort
11–20 of 109 posts
Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort
#12Interesting results... so sugary drinks AND 100% fruit juices are associated with an increase in cancer risks. I guess I'm not surprised at all about the sugary drinks, but fruit juices... maybe. Artificially sweetened beverages showed no increase. I guess now we watch for headlines like "Soda Causes Cancer" which is not what this really says.
Aside from naturally occurring micronutrients, fruit juice isn't that different from soda. I'm not a chemist, but I think it's largely just different ratios of sucrose/fructose/glucose.
Does the fiber in the fruit negate the cancer risks? If not, would it be logical to say fruit is now linked to cancer?
Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort
#13Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort
#14Now that's surprising. I would have guessed artificial sweeteners would have had more cancerous effects than "natural" sugars, but I guess that's just a logical fallicy where I assume lab synthesized chemicals are automatically worse for your body than plant synthesized chemicals.
Artificially sweetened drinks are extremely bad. Refer to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30802187
Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite. They're supposed to be drinking coffee without sugar.
But the acrylamide in coffee is a cancer risk also.
There is no evidence that the content of acrylamide in coffee is concerning. Nevertheless I agree that acrylamide is a general concern, and its levels in foods and drinks including coffee needs to be regulated better.
Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort
#16Interesting results... so sugary drinks AND 100% fruit juices are associated with an increase in cancer risks. I guess I'm not surprised at all about the sugary drinks, but fruit juices... maybe. Artificially sweetened beverages showed no increase. I guess now we watch for headlines like "Soda Causes Cancer" which is not what this really says.
Fructose is not great for the human body.
Fructose in actual solid fruits in moderation is fine.
Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aside from naturally occurring micronutrients, fruit juice isn't that different from soda. I'm not a chemist, but I think it's largely just different ratios of sucrose/fructose/glucose.
Does the fiber in the fruit negate the cancer risks? If not, would it be logical to say fruit is now linked to cancer?
Solid fruits are not linked to cancer, although the pesticides in them can be carcinogenic.
Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort
#18Does it ever say how much the participants were drinking?
Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort
#19Now that's surprising. I would have guessed artificial sweeteners would have had more cancerous effects than "natural" sugars, but I guess that's just a logical fallicy where I assume lab synthesized chemicals are automatically worse for your body than plant synthesized chemicals.
There is not enough data in this study to conclude either way about artificial sweeteners
It’s literally in the conclusion section.
Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort
#20Does anyone know the answer to this question?
If I am going to drink a soda, which soda am I better off drinking? Coke or Diet Coke/Coke Zero?
I know that neither option is good for me, but which would be comparatively better or is the science still out on that?