Live data from Hacker News

Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort

bmj.com

31–40 of 109 posts

Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort

#32
post #28

I don't understand, maybe due to a language difference. Does 100% fruit juice mean the store bought 100% fruit guice (the premium brands?) or literally freshly squeezed orange, immediately drank? Wouldn't also eating fresh fruits be linked?

Probably as it is about the amount of sugar. It would be difficult to eat enough fruits to intake the same amount of sugar as drinking juice made from fruit.

Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort

#33
post #23

Does 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?

This study seems to very clearly indicate Diet Coke/Coke Zero is much healthier than Coke. There are tons of studies like this that concretely show how bad sugar is for you, while most studies show that artificial sweeteners have no (or minimal relative to sugar) adverse health effects.

Some years back there were press articles citing studies (of course you can't believe what you see in the headlines) that claimed artificial sweeteners don't have the same affect on satiety as real sugar, causing you to eat more.

That matches my one-person anecdotal observations, but perhaps that isn't much to go by. Find what works for you. I had much better luck with health and personal fitness by that vs. getting overly worried about what other people say works.

Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort

#35
post #28

I don't understand, maybe due to a language difference. Does 100% fruit juice mean the store bought 100% fruit guice (the premium brands?) or literally freshly squeezed orange, immediately drank? Wouldn't also eating fresh fruits be linked?

Out of curiosity what do you see as the difference? Is it just how long the juice sat there? Or are you suggesting they add something to (not-from-concentrate) "100% fruit juice" that isn't listed in the ingredients?

Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort

#36

This is the kind of study you would have thought would have been done decades ago. Super relevant. I wonder why it’s taken so long.

Obviosuly nobody with the necessary money was interested in funding such a study.

Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort

#37
post #12

Earlier 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?

In addition to the fiber, I wonder if it's also a quantity issue. It takes about 4 oranges to make 1 cup of orange juice.

Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort

#38
post #5

Now 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

>postmenopausal US women

Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort

#39
post #28

I don't understand, maybe due to a language difference. Does 100% fruit juice mean the store bought 100% fruit guice (the premium brands?) or literally freshly squeezed orange, immediately drank? Wouldn't also eating fresh fruits be linked?

Out of curiosity what do you see as the difference? Is it just how long the juice sat there? Or are you suggesting they add something to (not-from-concentrate) "100% fruit juice" that isn't listed in the ingredients?

[deleted]

Re: Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort

#40
post #28

I don't understand, maybe due to a language difference. Does 100% fruit juice mean the store bought 100% fruit guice (the premium brands?) or literally freshly squeezed orange, immediately drank? Wouldn't also eating fresh fruits be linked?

One very intuitive explanation I've heard:

It's very difficult to eat 5 oranges in one go.

It's very easy to drink the same 5 oranges as a fresh squeezed drink.

So it's basically a question of quantity, eating it makes you full very quickly, unlike drinking it.

Post reply on HN