Little is known about the impacts that ASBs pose on health, especially those used in beverages like DS. As discussed above, some findings have been made about their relation to cardiometabolic implications, but these findings remain controversial.
Why in the fuck y’all linking the studies without reading? Or do you think people around you are also stupid and nobody can actually read what you linked? Do you think we would be intimidating by big words or something. Fuck.
? Did you read the conclusion, which is what the researchers believe you should take from these findings? I picked some random paper because this is well established that they have negative effects
The excessive consumption of these beverages does indeed pose a threat to health, as it impacts many organs and systems.
Some of the risks are listed as follows: mental health (including incidental mood disorders such as depression and eating disorders such as bulimia); delays in child neurodevelopment when consumed by mothers during pregnancy; cardiac remodeling (increased LAD and LVM); evidence of worsening retinopathy as well as increased HbA1c in diabetics; increased urinary symptoms in women; incidental ESRD, a modest association between consumption of ASB and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as well as multiple myeloma in men, incidental rheumatoid arthritis in women; increased risk of hip fractures in postmenopausal women; incidental dental erosion and caries; and finally, increases in BrAC when used in alcoholic beverages.
Is that how you read the articles? Is that how you expect everyone to read the articles? You just skip to conclusion and pretend that you now understand what it’s all about? Bloody hell, no wonder then. I know people like to link studies that don’t support their points, and I now get why, you actually think you do.
That is how you should read anything you are not an expert in, yes. A layperson can very often misunderstand what they are reading (mixing up correlation and causation for instance) and draws incorrect conclusions, so you defer to what the experts believe, i.e. their conclusion.
You should never, ever, under any circumstances, cherry-pick what parts of studies to read and use that to draw conclusions. You need to read all the words, experts believe all the words in the study they publish, unless it’s a citation predicated with “some idiots who are wrong also saying:”.
Whoever told you your way of reading lied to you, possibly taught you wrong way on purpose as a joke.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9891650/
I’m not sure if this includes Stevia but artificial sweeteners have some pretty bad long term effects
Why in the fuck y’all linking the studies without reading? Or do you think people around you are also stupid and nobody can actually read what you linked? Do you think we would be intimidating by big words or something. Fuck.
? Did you read the conclusion, which is what the researchers believe you should take from these findings? I picked some random paper because this is well established that they have negative effects
Is that how you read the articles? Is that how you expect everyone to read the articles? You just skip to conclusion and pretend that you now understand what it’s all about? Bloody hell, no wonder then. I know people like to link studies that don’t support their points, and I now get why, you actually think you do.
That is how you should read anything you are not an expert in, yes. A layperson can very often misunderstand what they are reading (mixing up correlation and causation for instance) and draws incorrect conclusions, so you defer to what the experts believe, i.e. their conclusion.
You should never, ever, under any circumstances, cherry-pick what parts of studies to read and use that to draw conclusions. You need to read all the words, experts believe all the words in the study they publish, unless it’s a citation predicated with “some idiots who are wrong also saying:”.
Whoever told you your way of reading lied to you, possibly taught you wrong way on purpose as a joke.