Potential Link Between Daily Consumption Of Diet Soft Drinks And Risk Of Vascular Events

[snagglepuss]

snip

(Study) found that those who drank diet soft drinks daily were 43 percent more likely to have suffered a vascular event than those who drank none, after taking into account pre-existing vascular conditions such as metabolic syndrome, diabetes and high blood pressure. Light diet soft drink users, i.e. those who drank between one a month and six a week, and those who chose regular soft drinks were not more likely to suffer vascular events.

Gardener concludes: "Our results suggest a potential association between daily diet soft drink consumption and vascular outcomes. However, the mechanisms by which soft drinks may affect vascular events are unclear. There is a need for further research before any conclusions can be drawn regarding the potential health consequences of diet soft drink consumption."





http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/241009.php

[MADem]

1. Well, that sucks! nt

[snagglepuss]

2. I used to be very addicted to Diet Coke.

It was damned hard to give up. Now I drink only iced green tea. Didn't like it at first but now I can't live without it.

[MADem]

3. I like the odd diet soda. I go through fits and starts.

I drink it for a bit, then get off it.

I like it in the hot weather, certainly.

[Scuba]

4. Vascular event? Hell, I have 68 of those every minute.

[morningglory]

5. Could the Snickers bar I have with my diet soda every afternoon contribute to any of this? nt

[Warpy]

6. Right now, this is crap science

When they get down to the nitty gritty of determining whether it's something in the soda, the increased CO2 load from the bubbles, or BPH from the bottles, maybe we'll be onto something solid.

Right now it's just a soda hater's wet dream.

[snagglepuss]

7. Did you not read the article? The study shows potential problems when people consume

diet soda daily. Moderate diet soda drinkers and egular soft drinks were not more likely to suffer vascular events.

[laconicsax]

8. Your response doesn't address a single thing Warpy said.

Did you not read her comment?

[snagglepuss]

9. I can assure you that Warpy is capable of defending her post and her

post does not acknowledge that the study draws distinctions between moderate diet soda consumption and daily diet soda consumption as well as a distinction diet soda and regular soda.

[laconicsax]

11. I have no doubt in my mind that Warpy can defend herself.

The distinction between moderate and daily use makes no difference when it comes to what she said.

You may not be aware of this, but no two diet sodas are the same. It could be that aspartame alone is the culprit, it may be a combination of sweeteners and preservatives, it could even be outside factors like lifestyle or diet.

The fact is that without any sort of guideposts, saying that "diet soda can cause vascular problems" is about as useful as "plants can cause skin irritation."

[hlthe2b]

12. No, but the period in question was the 1990s to 2000--so guess which was the likely

sweetener involved?

Given it was the most widely used sweetener during this time (Splenda wasn't on market until after its ingredient was approved in late 1998 and did not have market share for some time thereafter), so the likely culprit has to be aspartame.

[Warpy]

10. They also didn't distinguish among sweeteners used

which is especially troubling.

[hlthe2b]

13. Time period strongly suggests aspartame...see my post above

[Warpy]

15. It's the Framingham study

and likely most of the people drinking the diet sodas were already developing metabolic syndrome because they were trying to cut calories down.

It was also the period for saccharine and cyclamates.

All these epidemiological studies would seem to be putting the cart before the horse and too many of them are funded by Big Sugar. I'm taking them with a pound of salt (except I can't eat that, either).

[hlthe2b]

17. yes, Framingham, but see below--

In the study published in Stroke, researchers analyzed data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort on intake of sugar sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages and the incidence of a first stroke or diagnosis of dementia.

The stroke cohort included 2888 participants older than age 45 years (average age, 62 years) and the dementia cohort included 1484 participants older than age 60 years (average age, 69 years).

All participants had completed regular food intake questionnaires. For the current study, researchers focused on beverage intake from 1991 to 2001 and the occurrence of stroke or dementia in the following 10 years.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/878894#vp_2

While temporality issues are of course a concern with respect to concomitant ilness, as well as uncontrolled confounding, (including the possibility of earlier saccharine and even much earlier cyclamate use in the oldest of the cohort), the time period of focus is peak aspartame years--not saccharine, cyclamate nor sucralose.

It may serve as a useful first step in reviewing the safety over time of one or more artificial sweeteners, but obviously is merely adequate for suggesting a direction for further research. Still, I have no problem with questioning the long-term safety of aspartame in particular, given the political tactics behind its original license/marketing.

[Warpy]

16. THE SKY IS FALLING!

I not only read the article, I followed it to the original in "Stroke," over on Medscape. Did you?

There are a lot of problems with this one. Face it.

Epidemiological studies are useful because they point researchers toward figuring out the mechanism for whatever is happening. That's what happened with the early smoking study that came out in 1964, where the conclusions were much, much stronger, the variables more controlled, and a single substance implicated.

This one is all over the place.

We now know the physical action of nicotine on smooth muscle. We know about mucociliary dyskenisia that keeps particulates trapped in lung tissue.

Perhaps if they narrow this one down to specific sweeterners and take into account the reasons people were drinking diet drinks instead of sugared ones, they'll be on the way to discovering some sort of mechanism.

Until then, it's just one more crap study funded by Big Sugar.

[hlthe2b]

14. I agree far from conclusive

But causality can never be established from a single observational study...that doesn't mean the study was necessarily "crap" but the conclusions ascribed to it may well be.