from the link:
“The 31-year-old mother of eight” I would argue that’s the story, not the 2.2 gallons of soda per day! :smack:
The whooshing is loud and constant in this thread. Re-read the OP. 
That “study” appears to be pretty much worthless. The author looked at a grand total of three people, and all of them “had poor oral hygiene and did not visit the dentist on a regular basis.” And we’re supposed to draw conclusions from this?
Sorry for resurrecting this thread. But when I read this article, I instantly remembered this discussion:
I appreciate this counterpoint. It is important for the weaknesses of a study to be laid bare before it is taken too seriously. But this warning at the end makes me roll my eyes. How would one’s health become poorer by reducing’s ones artificial sweetener intake? As long as they don’t increase their intake of natural sugars, their health should either stay the same or improve. The take-home message of the original paper is not “ditch the artificial sweetener and embrace real sugar again!” It’s “artificial sweeteners could potentially increase your risk of diabetes”.
If someone concludes that sugar is safe from this, that is on them, not the authors of the study.
But I will return to the point I made earlier in the thread. Science works in dibble and drabs. It can take years before there is a scientific consensus (see climate change) and even longer before that consensus hits public policy. A person should be aware that fundamentally we’re guinea pigs. If the OP is fine with the possibility (however slight) that his risk of diabetes is increased by ingesting 4 cans of diet cola a day, then no biggie. But if he’s the type of person who is concerned about that particular disease (maybe he’s got a genetic predisposition like I do), then it might be helpful for him to be aware of this study’s findings. Just so that if he does test positive for elevated blood glucose one day, he’s not completely blindsinded and he knows exactly what he can do to treat himself. But waiting for FDA to do something first wouldn’t be wise, IMHO.
That’s exactly how. People like soda. if they hear that “diet cola causes diabetes” they switch to sugar soda because people are idiots.
I mean, you’ve met people, right?
If I publish a paper showing that heavy red meat consumption is linked to cardiovascular disease, am I implicitly encouraging people to increase their consumption of fried chicken and fish?
If people choose to draw this dumb-ass conclusion, should my research be put down because of it?
It’s very obvious that the person quoted in that article is talking about the negative consequences of switching to sugared drinks. They explicitly state that multiple times.
Also, I do not think Dr Novella is critiquing the original study, but rather how the polpular press has presented the scientists’ findings.
There was definitely some criticisms of the original study in there. Not harsh criticism, but he points out some problems with their methodology.
In their latest podcast (Episode 480) the study is discussed. It’s tackled about forty minutes in, although the entire podcast is worth hearing.
I don’t think 4 cans of diet pop a day will harm anyone. Remember the acids in your stomach are much stronger than anything in the coke you drink. I prefer diet 7-up, over a full glass of ice, and I drink about one liter a day. As the ice melts I top off the pop with more ice. How is this different that the well over liter of ice tea my husband drinks over a day?
Heh, just realized I didn’t mention it’s the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast, with Steven Novella. To summarize, further research may be warranted.