Sugary drinks and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by maxharris » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #62

crdrost wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can't you just buy juice with pulp if you want fiber?

No, that's the same mistake as thinking that simply having a condom in your pocket will protect you from unwanted effects during sex.

Fiber only works to limit the rate of fructose absorption when it's intact and the fructose is bound up inside it.

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

#82

Post by simonsarris » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:15 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #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 even…

Good on you for trying. It gets easier, this I swear.

...But between us and Virtue the gods have placed sweat: long and steep is the path that leads to her, and it is rough at the first; but when a man has reached the top, then is she easy to reach, though before that she was hard.

(Hesiod, Works and Days)

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

#83

Post by AstralStorm » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

Eat sugar (glucose), get glycation endproducts impairing immune system, ultimately increase cancer risk and age yourself.

I'd like to see if this is the exact mechanism or there's still more. Perhaps oxidative damage? I suppose they controlled for weight and fat percentage right?

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

#84

Post by AstralStorm » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

want2know wrote: post #49

cardine wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Aspartame is bad for your in large quantities. The safe standard is 40mg/kg/day. So my guess it is safer than sugar. Claims that artificial sweetners are bad fall into the category of drinking litres of water in a short period of time.

Bad how? Please substantiate the claims. I remember the intake limit being based on some very conservative theory on handling excess uric acid.

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

#85

Post by dgzl » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

QuickToBan wrote: post #16

wincy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fructose is not great for the human body.

Fructose in actual solid fruits in moderation is fine.

I ate two pounds of strawberries this week. I wonder how much fructose that is, comparatively.

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

#86

Post by AstralStorm » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

salex89 wrote: post #41

mehrdadn wrote: post #35

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…

Store bought juice is just pasteurized. Exactly like milk. You can also apply UHT process and do either at home with basic tools.

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

#87

Post by mehrdadn » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #78

mehrdadn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly you need more than just one or two data points to conclude a substance is addictive. For pretty much anything you could always find a small number of people who have trouble avoiding it.

If you want to ignore the science, you can argue that soda isn't addictive. We know that sugar and caffeine each in isolation are addictive. We also know that the combination is addictive. But all the studies could also be "data points." It really comes down to how many data points you feel qualifies for legitimacy/where the threshold is. For example Caffeine: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/4/1144/4557113…

Where did I ignore science? My whole point was that you need to provide scientific evidence if you want to conclude a substance is addictive, not just 1 data point from yourself. Otherwise I would just cite myself because I stopped drinking soda the day I decided to and my body couldn't care less, and now we're back at square one.

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

#88

Post by sjg007 » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:35 PM UTC

cardine wrote: post #23

illnewsthat wrote: post #20

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.

I would drink Mexican coke over regular coke. This is sucrose vs high fructose corn syrup.

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

#89

Post by sjg007 » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:37 PM UTC

meremortals wrote: post #67

umvi wrote: 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.

The "... but it's natural" argument is insane. "Natural" poison Ivy, sharks, and fire vs "unnatural" antibiotics, chemotherapy, insulin shots.

Some people are bad at logical reasoning.

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

#90

Post by edwin » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #25

Sorry Warburg Effect on wikipedia if anyone is curious.

http://news.mit.edu/2016/how-cancer-cells-fuel-their-growth-... - this more recent study theorizes that amino acids, rather than glucose, supply most building blocks for tumor cells