Live data from Hacker News

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

bmj.com

51–60 of 109 posts

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

#51

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?

[deleted]

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

#52
Soda is poison. It might sound dramatic, but I think we'll come to see it as similar to smoking or heavy alcohol drinking (assuming we aren't there already).

I've been trying to quit for years. I'll likely get mocked, but it is quite addictive once you're hooked (particularly as it makes you tired, which makes you want to drink more to feel "normal").

I'm trying to move to sweetened Iced Tea (40% less sugar) and eventually unsweetened Iced Tea/water. But getting used to less caffeine/sugar actually causes legitimate withdrawal, plus kicking a habit is always tricky.

It has been linked to cancer (stomach, throat, mouth, the whole digestive system), diabetes, heart disease, and beyond.

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

#53
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

I quickly scanned the study you linked and its conclusions, but it doesn't seem to draw any reliable conclusions at all. It specifically mentions the results need to be reproduced, are purely observational, depended on self-reported intake quantities, and did not correct for possible factors that correlate with intake of artificial sweeteners (such as obesity). Last but not least the test group was purely women in a relatively narrow age range above 50.

I always get somewhat triggered by people claiming artificial sweeteners are provably bad, because so far I have not seen a single study that conclusively claims this without a long list of reservations. All while the health effects of artificial sweeteners are one of the most researched topics in nutritional science.

I don't have a stake in this game at all (I rarely eat/drink things that have artificial sweeteners, or actual sugar, for that matter), but the fact that after decades of research there still is no smoking gun tells me the supposed adverse health effects of artificial sweeteners are way overblown.

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

#54
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm no food technologist but squeeze an orange and put it in a glass, which is pure orange guice (100%?) and leave it on a table, and do the same with the 100% store bought one. The one from a bottle or cardboard box, not the "squeezed today" ones which are refrigerated. There will certainly be a difference, the freshly squeezed one will be stale, possibly ransid within a day. The bought one, not so sure... So there…

Have you actually tried this?

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

#55
post #9

So people who drink coffee are doubly impacted due to the acrylamide and the sugar.

That's an unwarranted assumption! e.g., I drink lots of coffee, but I never contaminate it with fructose.

Milk sugars (lactose, glucose, galactose) don't affect leptin or ghrelin, so there's no risk of overeating as a result. (I also tend reduce my intake of these healthy milk sugars by using heavy whipping cream instead of whole milk.)

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

#56
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm no food technologist but squeeze an orange and put it in a glass, which is pure orange guice (100%?) and leave it on a table, and do the same with the 100% store bought one. The one from a bottle or cardboard box, not the "squeezed today" ones which are refrigerated. There will certainly be a difference, the freshly squeezed one will be stale, possibly ransid within a day. The bought one, not so sure... So there…

[deleted]

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

#57
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm no food technologist but squeeze an orange and put it in a glass, which is pure orange guice (100%?) and leave it on a table, and do the same with the 100% store bought one. The one from a bottle or cardboard box, not the "squeezed today" ones which are refrigerated. There will certainly be a difference, the freshly squeezed one will be stale, possibly ransid within a day. The bought one, not so sure... So there…

Have you actually tried this? What did you find? Because I actually conducted something very similar to this experiment with someone else once, because they said the same thing as you just did and I was skeptical. We left the one we squeezed in the fridge for several days (I want to say almost a week, but it's been a few years so I don't remember exactly) and it was fine when we drank it after. We did cover the whole glass to avoid constant air exchange etc. (I didn't try doing it without that) but it was a fairly decent debunking as far as I was concerned.

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

#58
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 it means store-bought.

One key thing about squeezing your own juice is that typically you get more fiber in your diet and fiber usually has a negative impact on cancer, which I would strongly suspect would mitigate the impact of the sugars... in addition there is a health consciousness effect where you might notice that some man or woman who is that committed to fresh-squeezing fruit juice for themselves and their kids, probably has other healthy habits that would tend to discourage cancers.

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

#59
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.

There is plenty of evidence that artificial sweeteners spike your insulin in the same way that sugars do[1], leading to adverse effects.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772345/

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

#60

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 says: With respect to cancer, you’re better off with Diet.

It does not say whether you’re better off with Diet from non-cancer perspectives - such as diabetes, obesity, endocrine system disorders, osteoporosis, tooth cavities, and so forth.

Generally people say “healthier” to mean “will I die sooner”, so the study you should be looking for to answer “healthier” is likely a relative comparison of mortal causes and age of death between soda and diet drinkers.

Post reply on HN