Study Finds Sugary Drinks Significantly Linked To Cancer

F K

All Star
Joined
Jan 13, 2017
Messages
3,204
Reputation
480
Daps
10,130
Maybe the government we should discourage the drinking of these beverages :jbhmm:
 

Prince.Skeletor

Don’t Be Like He-Man
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
30,287
Reputation
-6,849
Daps
59,312
Reppin
Bucktown
In many summer camps I see they brings kids to the movies sometimes once a week, & parents are expected to pay for the movie & a trio.

I see parents buying their kids a MASSIVE sugary drink all the time at the cinema.
Bad parenting imo.

I myself have not had a soft drink in maybe a decade now.
Man i'm so happy that i'm me & the way i am.
 

Prince.Skeletor

Don’t Be Like He-Man
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
30,287
Reputation
-6,849
Daps
59,312
Reppin
Bucktown
And one more thing.
I mean............ its 2019, how late is this?
They only did a study now????????

Why arent more studies being done like decades ago
 

acri1

The Chosen 1
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
25,932
Reputation
4,422
Daps
118,191
Reppin
Detroit
Probably the artificial sweeteners moreso than anything else although sugar is bad for u in general obviously

Artificial sweeteners are a little overblown IMO.

Not that I'm saying they're good for you, but they're not really worse than sugar. The main issue with artificial sweeteners isn't that they cause cancer (that link is weak at best) but that they mess up your hormones and make you hungrier.
 

NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
46,331
Reputation
5,936
Daps
94,032
Reppin
Uncertain grounds
Artificial sweeteners are a little overblown IMO.

Not that I'm saying they're good for you, but they're not really worse than sugar. The main issue with artificial sweeteners isn't that they cause cancer (that link is weak at best) but that they mess up your hormones and make you hungrier.

Good to know. Maybe im outdated on my artificial sweetener information. I try to use raw sugar whenever i can for coffee etc
 

Prince.Skeletor

Don’t Be Like He-Man
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
30,287
Reputation
-6,849
Daps
59,312
Reppin
Bucktown
Good to know. Maybe im outdated on my artificial sweetener information. I try to use raw sugar whenever i can for coffee etc
black coffee breh
I eat and drink super healthy but its actually my wife that got me into black coffee
had it 3 times and then-after never looked back.

avoid sugar at all costs
There was this guy at my work, he was putting loads of sugar into his coffee
I told him that's not healthy, that's more sugar than coffee.
He got offended it seemed, but played it off politely and just said ya I know
I never got that, why people feel offended if tell them to take care of their health,makes no sense
 

acri1

The Chosen 1
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
25,932
Reputation
4,422
Daps
118,191
Reppin
Detroit
Good to know. Maybe im outdated on my artificial sweetener information. I try to use raw sugar whenever i can for coffee etc

Yeah, that basically came from a study in the 70s that linked Sweet N Low with bladder cancer in rats. But it ended up being related to a mechanism that doesn't really apply to humans, and when they studied people who consumed them they didn't find a link - Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer

What have studies shown about a possible association between specific artificial sweeteners and cancer?

Saccharin

Studies in laboratory rats during the early 1970s linked saccharin with the development of bladder cancer, especially in male rats. However, mechanistic studies (studies that examine how a substance works in the body) have shown that these results apply only to rats. Human epidemiology studies (studies of patterns, causes, and control of diseases in groups of people) have shown no consistent evidence that saccharin is associated with bladder cancer incidence.

Because the bladder tumors seen in rats are due to a mechanism not relevant to humans and because there is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans, saccharin was delisted in 2000 from the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens, where it had been listed since 1981 as a substance reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen (a substance known to cause cancer). More information about the delisting of saccharin is available in the Report on Carcinogens, Fourteenth Edition.

Aspartame

Aspartame, distributed under several trade names (e.g., NutraSweet® and Equal®), was approved in 1981 by the FDA after numerous tests showed that it did not cause cancer or other adverse effects in laboratory animals.

A 2005 study raised the possibility that very high doses of aspartame might cause lymphoma and leukemia in rats (1). But after reviewing the study, FDA identified many shortcomings in it and did not alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe. In 2005, the National Toxicology Program reported that aspartame exposure did not cause tumors in or affect the survival of two types of genetically modified mice (2).

In 2006, NCI examined human data from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study of over half a million retirees. Increasing consumption of aspartame-containing beverages was not associated with the development of lymphoma, leukemia, or brain cancer (3).

A 2013 review of epidemiologic evidence also found no consistent association between the use of aspartame and cancer risk (4).



So you probably won't get cancer, but you probably shouldn't consume them a lot anyway. Basically when you eat something sweet but your body doesn't get the calories it expects, it fukks up your brain chemistry and you just end up hungrier than you would be otherwise, which in the long term would tend to cause weight gain.

Why artificial sweeteners can increase appetite


So diet soda probably won't give you cancer, but it might make you fat by causing you to eat more.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,331
Reputation
19,930
Daps
204,091
Reppin
the ether
Just remembered how @David_TheMan used to say that soft drinks and fast food weren't unhealthy, all fake news he said. :snoop:


Yeah, I'm walking a breh through colon cancer now and I'm convinced his huge meat intake is the driving reason. Doctor told him the same thing. He's stage 4 now, had the surgery and is on his 5th round of chemotherapy. He's 41 and has a three-month old, only been married like 18 months.

Had a chick I knew, basically my Christian mentor when I was young, die of stomach cancer when she was 34. She was one of those foodies, ate way too much rich stuff. From diagnosis to death was less than four months. Left behind two little girls like 3 and 4.



And one more thing.
I mean............ its 2019, how late is this?
They only did a study now????????

Why arent more studies being done like decades ago
There have been. That thing I said about sugar, white flour, and cured meats comes from a huge cancer meta study that's at least 15 years old, and the studies within it include stiff from the 1980s and 1990s. This been known.
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
3,891
Reputation
1,672
Daps
12,266
Just remembered how @David_TheMan used to say that soft drinks and fast food weren't unhealthy, all fake news he said. :snoop:



Yeah, I'm walking a breh through colon cancer now and I'm convinced his huge meat intake is the driving reason. Doctor told him the same thing. He's stage 4 now, had the surgery and is on his 5th round of chemotherapy. He's 41 and has a three-month old, only been married like 18 months.

Had a chick I knew, basically my Christian mentor when I was young, die of stomach cancer when she was 34. She was one of those foodies, ate way too much rich stuff. From diagnosis to death was less than four months. Left behind two little girls like 3 and 4.




There have been. That thing I said about sugar, white flour, and cured meats comes from a huge cancer meta study that's at least 15 years old, and the studies within it include stiff from the 1980s and 1990s. This been known.

Most of those studies are either BS, guilty of pulling a Chicken Little or the result of an uninformed journalist who misinterprets what the actual study is saying.

The say stuff like eating XYZ increases your risk of getting ABC-type cancer by 20% when in fact the chance of getting cancer for those who don't eat XYZ is 2%. If you eat an above average amount of XYZ, your cancer risk is now 2.4% (20% increase) instead of 2%. Scientists have a term for this. It's called statistical insignificance.

The largest factor to you getting most forms of cancer are errors in DNA replication. The darker hue below for Environmental are HN (head and neck), E (esophageal) and L (lung) and due to smoking. The M (melanoma) is due to sun overexposure. The U (prostate) needs more data.

The major cause for colorectal cancer, that you described about your friend, is primarily in the Replicative column. Although there's a slight increase on the Environmental side for stomach cancer, North America and Africa (diets that you'd consider extremely rich) have the lowest incidents worldwide.

DNA typos to blame for most cancer mutations
How Much Do You Really Have to Worry About Cancer?
DNA Replication Errors Contribute to Cancer Risk

2c347ab0-f76b-4ed1-bee3-583b661a4957-640cancer1.jpg
 
Top