Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 109 posts

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

#91

Post by docker_up »

Someone1234 wrote: post #68
docker_up wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soda is addictive. At my worst, I drank 6 Cokes a day. I've been a heavy Coke drinker for a long, long time. I have a psychological dependence on it, so when I'm particularly stressed, I need to guzzle it down. I'm down to about 1-2 Cokes every week. I will crumble and drink a 20 oz Coke about once a week and drink water or ice tea (either unsweetened or low-sweetened (90 calories)). The irony is that an equivalent g…

Congrats on the impressive progress. How did you get started/what steps did you take? Was it a straight switch to water (with occasional back-slide), or did you just slowly progress away from the soda one drink at a time?

Thanks but it's far from impressive. It's been years. I've gone back and forth and did no-carb a few times (lost 30 lbs once and then fell off the wagon) which helped me break the habit. But then someone stressful would occur and I was back to 1-2 Cokes a day for a while.

Finally I scared myself enough that sugar drinks cause pancreatic cancer (no evidence but I'm still scared) and high fructose corn syrup causes fatty liver disease, which I actually do have, which in turn can lead to cirrhosis and/or liver cancer.

From that I basically scared myself straight. I started drinking a lot of unsweetened tea actually, and then substituted a little sweet tea for Coke. Eventually I've just broken the habit of drinking Coke every day and drinking tea instead and these days a lot of water as well.

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

#92

Post by heavymark »

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…

You should try Bai’s soda like tasting drinks as far more healthy, and would make the transition to water or flavored water such as with lime and lemon more manageable. Also working out a lot will make you want to drink a lot more water, though adding a significant workout routine adds it’s own set of challenges.

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

#93

Post by want2know »

AstralStorm wrote: post #84
want2know wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well I meant as bad as drinking too much water.

When your weight is 70kg you can safely consume 2800mg per day. And that's a lot!

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

#95

Post by AstralStorm »

ZeroFries wrote: post #42
bgentry wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fruit juice and soda are effectively the same to your body. They’re both high-fructose liquids which spike blood sugar and lead to insulin resistance. The only meaningful difference is that a fruit juice probably also includes some vitamins that the soda doesn’t. Sources: anything published by Dr. Robert Lustig @ UCSF

Most fruit juices have a GI of ~50, which is moderate (about the same as a sweet potato). They don't really spike blood-sugar. Fructose is low-GI. They also contain other phytonutrients and flavenoids which may aid health in appropriate doses (e.g. hesperetin and naringenin in citrus juices).

And GI is linked to morbidity endpoints how?

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

#96

Post by maxharris »

ZeroFries wrote: post #42
bgentry wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fruit juice and soda are effectively the same to your body. They’re both high-fructose liquids which spike blood sugar and lead to insulin resistance. The only meaningful difference is that a fruit juice probably also includes some vitamins that the soda doesn’t. Sources: anything published by Dr. Robert Lustig @ UCSF

Most fruit juices have a GI of ~50, which is moderate (about the same as a sweet potato). They don't really spike blood-sugar. Fructose is low-GI. They also contain other phytonutrients and flavenoids which may aid health in appropriate doses (e.g. hesperetin and naringenin in citrus juices).

Fructose interferes with satiety, mediated by leptin, ghrelin, etc.

This is well-documented in the literature. High-fructose, low-fiber diets make people overeat.

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

#97

Post by maxharris »

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.

Yes, but if you freeze the fruit, or do anything to remove or damage the fiber, like baking it, then it's just candy.

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

#98

Post by sdinsn »

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?

> The consumption of sugary drinks was significantly associated with the risk of overall cancer... The consumption of artificially sweetened beverages was not associated with the risk of cancer

According to the study, diet drinks are not associated with cancer

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

#99

Post by djsumdog »

asveikau wrote: post #33
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.

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…

This doesn't invalid that hypothesis. A lot of people drink a mix of both. Artificial sweeteners can confuse your brain/hormone systems and you may consume more other calories (studies show this in mice).

We are more aware than mice though. Sugar is really bad for you .. really bad. Read up on keto diets (staying under 30g or sometimes under 10g of carbs per day .. limiting carb consumption to fruits with high fiber when you do eat them). I had a good friend who got on Ketro while he had cancer .. didn't tell his doctor, but within a few week a tumor shrunk by nearly a cm .. enough they could now operate.

Sugar is a powerful fuel source and modern humans don't need very much of it at all. The findings of this study don't really surprise me. All that extra unneeded sugar can totally feed young cancer cells.

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

#100

Post by asveikau »

djsumdog wrote: post #99
asveikau wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This doesn't invalid that hypothesis. A lot of people drink a mix of both. Artificial sweeteners can confuse your brain/hormone systems and you may consume more other calories (studies show this in mice). We are more aware than mice though. Sugar is really bad for you .. really bad. Read up on keto diets (staying under 30g or sometimes under 10g of carbs per day .. limiting carb consumption to fruits with high fiber…

> Read up on keto diets

I politely decline. In 2017 and 2018 I lost 100 lbs in 18 months and the primary staple of my diet was pasta dishes. The low-carb thing is not for me.

Like I said, find what works for you and ignore what people say is supposed to work. Today it is quite trendy to demonize carbs, tomorrow it may be something else, meanwhile plenty of healthy people eat lots of demonized items, but a narrow focus and overemphasis on good/bad may cause you to lose the big picture.

Post reply on HN