Don’t. It’s shit. In the UK, every drink became low sugar as they swapped sugar for aspartame and asulfate k. Only coca-cola stayed the same and you pay the tax. I mostly drink apple or orange juice now, but I reserve the right to want to drink shitty drinks when I buy a takeaway. Companies didn’t give that choice unfortunately.
Artificial sugars taste like shit and there is some evidence that despite zero calories, they can lead to higher blood sugar level.
The hive view here is the rather not so nuanced sugar = bad, artificial sweeteners = great". Reminds me why I don’t miss reddit. It was the same in the pro-nuclear stance which had been astroturfed to the point that “nuclear > wind and solar”. Weirdly surreal and disturbing.
I get surprised when anticapitalists start doing the work of corporations.
This is straight up misinformation. The study you cited specifically says JEFCA continues to rate aspartame as safe with a fairly high daily intake, and IARC says there is limited evidence (i.e. basically no evidence of an acceptable standard) for carcinogenicity. It is classified as group 2B “possibly carcinogenic”, because there is no such thing as “not carcinogenic”. For reference:
People are free to drink the drinks that are worse for you, but given that the state foots the bill for the consequences of that, it’s not unreasonable to ask that you pay more to do so, just as we do for tobacco and alcohol.
As an adult, I can smoke, drink, eat all sorts of shit, but I cannot have a sugary drink unless it’s coke because shops stopped selling them. The law was intended to discourage, not prohibit. I actually drink more coke too now as it’s only soft drink I can buy that doesn’t taste like chemicals.
For reference, kids in schools can drink shit filled with artificial sweeteners. They can get chocolate with their lunch and trust me, they treat themselves to chocolate and a Prime on their way home.
This law didn’t protect health, just move folk to substitutes that aren’t necessary better for them. States shouldn’t be preventing consenting adults making decisions with their own health.
Hell, the food is still largely unregulated with ridiculous levels of sodium which is ridiculous for heart disease.
“A plausible explanation as to why fruit juices may lead to different health effects from those of sugar-sweetened beverages is that fruit juices are a source of various bioactive compounds, such as vitamins (vitamin C, folate, etc.), minerals (mostly potassium), and antioxidants [73], while sugar-sweetened beverages generally have none. Antioxidants were shown to decrease oxidative stress [91], which plays an important role in the prevention of cardiovascular disease, including atherosclerosis, diabetes, and dyslipidemia [92].”
Please don’t post excerpts from studies without reading the conclusion. This study doesn’t conclude what you want it to. The sentece about antioxidants for example is about antioxidants in general and not about whether their consumption in fruit juices has health benefits. The study basically says there’s a lack of data to assess the situation.
Here, look at this more recent study that compared different kinds of fruit juices.
You need to conduct your own study to proof that. Your study claims that there’s no real evidence for that, especially since other studies didn’t account for lifesyle and amount that was consumed enough.
Don’t. It’s shit. In the UK, every drink became low sugar as they swapped sugar for aspartame and asulfate k. Only coca-cola stayed the same and you pay the tax. I mostly drink apple or orange juice now, but I reserve the right to want to drink shitty drinks when I buy a takeaway. Companies didn’t give that choice unfortunately.
Artificial sugars taste like shit and there is some evidence that despite zero calories, they can lead to higher blood sugar level.
Oh, and aspartame could be carcinogenic: https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
It’s like when UK pushed folk to diesel to cut CO2 emissions and greenhouse gases got worse.
is it weird that I prefer sugar free drinks
The normal versions taste far too sweet and they mess up my stomach
The sugar free versions are more reasonable (imo) and they don’t mess up my stomach
Not at all,
Love my sugar free drinks, they taste better than sugared drinks
My kid spilled sugar free coke in my hair on a trip, and unlike if it was regular coke, it wasn’t an issue.
It’s not weird if that’s what you like. It makes me feel ill and triggers the gag reflex.
I wonder if my point is allowed, the fast food industries heavy investment in partial “science” and astroturfing has been very successful.
What do you mean by “allowed”?
The hive view here is the rather not so nuanced sugar = bad, artificial sweeteners = great". Reminds me why I don’t miss reddit. It was the same in the pro-nuclear stance which had been astroturfed to the point that “nuclear > wind and solar”. Weirdly surreal and disturbing.
I get surprised when anticapitalists start doing the work of corporations.
Yeah once you get used to the taste of the artificial sweetner its the superior version IMO. There’s no corn syrup film left on your teeth either
If you have a film left then something is weird about the drinks you were drinking
Yeah its the fucking corn syrup. That shit is awful
That’s a thing that happens with corn syrup? They use actual sugar for drinks here so i didn’t know
No
This is straight up misinformation. The study you cited specifically says JEFCA continues to rate aspartame as safe with a fairly high daily intake, and IARC says there is limited evidence (i.e. basically no evidence of an acceptable standard) for carcinogenicity. It is classified as group 2B “possibly carcinogenic”, because there is no such thing as “not carcinogenic”. For reference:
There is also very little evidence aspartame affects blood glucose. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831325000857
People are free to drink the drinks that are worse for you, but given that the state foots the bill for the consequences of that, it’s not unreasonable to ask that you pay more to do so, just as we do for tobacco and alcohol.
Very good point. We may as well have that beer instead of the occasional sugary drink. Similar carb count to tax ratio.
I’m pretty sure this is the intended purpose of the law.
As an adult, I can smoke, drink, eat all sorts of shit, but I cannot have a sugary drink unless it’s coke because shops stopped selling them. The law was intended to discourage, not prohibit. I actually drink more coke too now as it’s only soft drink I can buy that doesn’t taste like chemicals.
For reference, kids in schools can drink shit filled with artificial sweeteners. They can get chocolate with their lunch and trust me, they treat themselves to chocolate and a Prime on their way home.
This law didn’t protect health, just move folk to substitutes that aren’t necessary better for them. States shouldn’t be preventing consenting adults making decisions with their own health.
Hell, the food is still largely unregulated with ridiculous levels of sodium which is ridiculous for heart disease.
Apple juice isn’t really healthier than soft drinks, especially sugar-wise.
After the first one. One is likely good for you, but more and it’s a bit like drinking coke. Pulp based smoothies are more healthy through.
Fruit juice is the sugar of the fruits without the fibers. So not much different than a soda sugar wise.
No. Juice is not good for you. And smoothies are still worse than fresh fruit. And fruit is still worse than vegetables.
“A plausible explanation as to why fruit juices may lead to different health effects from those of sugar-sweetened beverages is that fruit juices are a source of various bioactive compounds, such as vitamins (vitamin C, folate, etc.), minerals (mostly potassium), and antioxidants [73], while sugar-sweetened beverages generally have none. Antioxidants were shown to decrease oxidative stress [91], which plays an important role in the prevention of cardiovascular disease, including atherosclerosis, diabetes, and dyslipidemia [92].”
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/11/5/1006
Please don’t spout opinions not based in fact.
There is more to fruit juice than just sugar.
Please don’t post excerpts from studies without reading the conclusion. This study doesn’t conclude what you want it to. The sentece about antioxidants for example is about antioxidants in general and not about whether their consumption in fruit juices has health benefits. The study basically says there’s a lack of data to assess the situation.
Here, look at this more recent study that compared different kinds of fruit juices.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213453024001915
It concludes that fruit juices have less health risks the more they resemble fresh fruit.
But juice resembles fruit more than sweetened drinks… So clearly better then.
You need to conduct your own study to proof that. Your study claims that there’s no real evidence for that, especially since other studies didn’t account for lifesyle and amount that was consumed enough.