Not The Onion

22374 readers

1201 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

406

Germany plans sugar tax that includes sugar free drinks (brusselssignal.eu)

submitted 6 days ago by time2lose@lemmy.world to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

244 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] phx@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Straight up Stevia isn't too bad. It comes from the leaves of a plant and if anything is often sweeter tasting per volume than sugar. That doesn't mean people should be drinking soft drinks with it in great volume versus water, but it's an acceptable substitute IMO to sugar in coffee or the occasional drink and still better than cane sugar. Soft drinks contain plenty of other shit that's not particularly good for you in addition to the sweeteners too.

Sucralose is nasty stuff, and Splenda is just a brand, with their "sweetener" containing a bit of Sucralose in their chemical cocktail "sugar substitute" in addition to hefty doses of dextrose/maltodexrin as bulking agents.

[–] BrickEater@lemmy.world -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I genuinely don't understand how anyone can ingest fake sweeteners and not be disgusted, they taste so wrong.

[–] crater2150@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago

So stevia is fake, because it comes from the leaf of a plant instead of from the root or the cane?

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works -2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

? 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.

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

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.