- Nov 17, 2017
Undeniable proof that trees are trying to kill us.
Until we're fucked from that too.
Oh I’m aware of the high sugar content but I was under the impression that “fruit sugar” would be different from the cane sugar/corn syrup added to some drinks as far as cancer risk goes.Sometimes the two are indistinguishable because of how they manipulate labeling. Apple juice, for example is already incredibly high in sugar, on par with most sodas.
(see 22g of sugar per 8oz)
(26 grams per 8oz)
That's just apple juice of course, but let's check something like Cranberry juice. Cranberries have very low sugar levels surely 100% juice there should be really low on sugar right?
28g of sugar despite having zero added sugar... because they can call it 100% juice while also adding other much heavier sugar content juices to sweeten it up (in this case, adding Grape, apple, and pear juices which all contain a ton of sugar naturally)
So a low sugar fruit like cranberries end up in a 100% juice with more calories than a can of coke...
So sugary drinks period, not just fruit juice.The study, published in the BMJ, finds the association with cancer is just as strong with fruit juices as it is with colas. “When the group of sugary drinks was split into 100% fruit juices and other sugary drinks, the consumption of both beverage types was associated with a higher risk of overall cancer,”
Sugar free diet drinks are a lot healthier than sugared ones. While it's true that studies have shown a number of negative side effects from them (if you drink non-sugar sweeteners, you're more likely to have cravings for sweet things than someone who gives it up entirely) the amount of artificial sweetener you need to consume is much much greater.
- The study also found that drinking one artificially sweetened beverage per day instead of a sugary one lowered the risk of premature death. However, drinking four or more artificially sweetened beverages per day was associated with increased risk of mortality in women, so researchers cautioned against excessive consumption of artificially-sweetened beverages.
Nah, once your body breaks it down sugar is sugar. Your insulin is still effected the same, your bodies ability to use and store it is the same.
CANCER IN A GLASS: THIS TASTY REFRESHMENT COULD LEAVE YOU SIX FEET UNDER THE BREAKFAST TABLE
Who let this raccoon in here?a word of advice, you’re being too straightforward for your username. try to be a little more acerbic and weird when you post. for instance, I personally like to add SCREEEREETETETEEEE sounds to my posts sometimes, to remind everyone that I’m a raccoon
on topic, yeah everybody should drink water, that’s pretty much the only “new” “takeaway” from this “study.” I mean, the article is literally “sugar is bad,” everybody ought to know this
The anti-science, exggerated, drive-by posts are exhausting and ruin any chance of discussion. Suggest to people that they change a minor aspect of their life in order to reduce the risks of disease and you get pages of dumbass comments. But hey, Era is such an enlightened place that openly accepts science, and not like those stupid antivaxxers and climate change denier shitheads, right?Yeah it's always weird reading these types of threads. Like people just completely disregard the science and pretend since many things are slightly dangerous, then no point in paying attention to what you consume. Some things are way more dangerous than others.
Yes, many things can give you cancer, but there are definitely safer ways to eat to keeps the risk very low.
Fructose is the same no matter where you get it from, and yes as others have alluded to it is essentially a liver toxin.
That's the problem, it's not a minor aspect of people's life because according to a lot of reports, people would need to completely reshape the way they eat, removing food they like from their diets in large parts. A lot of people actually enjoy eating and don't want to transform it as yet another chore you have to do.The anti-science, exggerated, drive-by posts are exhausting and ruin any chance of discussion. Suggest to people that they change a minor aspect of their life in order to reduce the risks of disease and you get pages of dumbass comments. But hey, Era is such an enlightened place that openly accepts science, and not like those stupid antivaxxers and climate change denier shitheads, right?
To be fair here we're talking about the food sciences one of the most notorious regarding public amendments and alterations to recommended dietary requirements. My sister worker at an institute of food science as a researcher and she's well aware of the infamy the discipline has and the reason why it gets such reactions.
oww... eh..wow.Former 'Desperate Housewives' star Marcia Cross recently opened up about her battle with anal cancer. The 57-year-old actress, whose cancer is now in remission, said she wants to change people's misconceptions about the disease.www.techtimes.com
I'm sure it'll be fine. I know the list of things that make us more vulnerable to cancer seems to grow every week, but if you spend your whole life avoiding things other people say is dangerous then you'll never have any fun.
The study is about epidemiology and public health. Anyone bringing up food science is doing themselves a disservice.To be fair here we're talking about the food sciences one of the most notorious regarding public amendments and alterations to recommended dietary requirements. My sister worker at an institute of food science as a researcher and she's well aware of the infamy the discipline has and the reason why it gets such reactions.
Your expecting, the casual readers looking to be more informed about their diet to understand the difference?