Hacker News Reader

Comment by URSpider94 | Hacker News Reader

Stripping away his sensationalist headline, the author is 100% right that this study proves basically nothing. The author does not control for either diabetes or BMI, two factors that are well known to increase risk for stroke, heart disease and dementia. Also, one might reasonably expect that someone who is obese or diabetic might in fact drink more diet soda than the general population. So, in fact, the results are well-explained by simple correlation, not causation.

That said, the fact that this study doesn't prove a significant connection between diet soda and these diseases, doesn't mean there isn't one. It's really hard to prove a negative. The best we can do is keep looking for a negative impact -- the longer we look and don't find one, the more likely that there isn't one.

View on HN

People have already spent a _lot_ of time and money looking, at least in the case of Aspartame.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy

> FDA officials describe aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut."

Why the downvotes? This is true to an almost absurd degree. The following food / health standards agencies have found aspartame to be safe for human consumption:

- World Health Organisation

- US FDA

- British Food Standards Agency

- European Food Safety Authority

- Health Canada

- Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Authority

- And a whole bunch of peer reviewed, double-blind RCTs

Although, I should disclose that the Aspartame Illuminati pay me a commission whenever I make a positive mention of the additive :)

Not sure about the rest, but doesn't the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Authority just adopt the USFDA stance where appropriate? Are you saying that they did their own research in this case?

Not sure about the rest, but doesn't the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Authority just adopt the USFDA stance where appropriate?

I don't know. What leads you to think that?

"Stripping away his sensationalist headline, the author is 100% right that this study proves basically nothing"

That may be true, but his telling people "They are safe" is not proven true and "Drink away" is just piling stupid on top of a lie.

The article is positing that there's enough research been done into diet soda sweeteners to claim that there are probably no adverse effects. This is enough to make a recommendation to use something. If everyone had to hedge their recommendations with "but we're not 100% sure it's safe", there wouldn't be recommendations any more.

>The article is positing that there's enough research been done into diet soda sweeteners to claim that there are probably no adverse effects.

What part of the article said that?

Sure, keep looking. But it's irritating how many people have the attitude that diet sodas are clearly bad for you, but that evidence is just being irritatingly elusive.

Maybe someone can track down a reference to the study that proved the drinks aren't "killing you", as the headline says.

The study in question was well designed, with a large population. Study participants, randomly assigned to one of three groups, drank either diet soda exclusively, regular soda exclusively, or water. Participants were followed for 60 years, and all major major illnesses and deaths were carefully recorded. After 60 years, the three groups were found to have identical outcomes, which allowed the FDA to approve aspertame for general consumption.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com