Same study didn't find any link with cancer and sugar free diet drinks.
Just go see how much sugar it has in it..?
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,"
Yea, but sugar free diet drinks are their own can of unhealthy worms and should be avoided as well.
- 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.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.
Just drink water, you idiots.
I'm glad I stopped eating fruits since two years ago.
CANCER IN A GLASS: THIS TASTY REFRESHMENT COULD LEAVE YOU SIX FEET UNDER THE BREAKFAST TABLEIt's just sugar. Sugary drinks make you fatter. Fruit juice is high in sugar. But that's not as click-baity as "fruit juice raises the risk of cancer"
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
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.Natural fruit juices or the boxed kind you find in stores with massive amounts of sugars and artificial shit added to them ?
If it's the former, I'm surprised.
If it's the latter, no shit.
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?
It's the cure.
Eating her pussy might give you throat-cancer. Maybe eating her ass will cure it but i doubt it.
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.For a supposedly progressive and pro-science forum, the amount of ignorant shit here is pretty telling.
Eating her pussy might give you throat-cancer. Maybe eating her ass will cure it but i doubt it.
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.
I wish public education would put more effort into teaching probability theory.meanwhile some people smoke every day and never get cancer and my friend whom my son is named after died from melanoma at age 30.
Your expecting, the casual readers looking to be more informed about their diet to understand the difference?The study is about epidemiology and public health. Anyone bringing up food science is doing themselves a disservice.
Apparently so.Your expecting, the casual readers looking to be more informed about their diet to understand the difference?
That's going expecting people to be pro science to be expecting them to be competent within the subject area. That's a pretty high expectation there.