[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation

6590 readers

1 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.

RULES

Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
Encourage conversation in your post
Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why do people act like coffee in the morning is such a sacred routine but soda in the morning [basically the same drink] is lowbrow and unhealthy? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

123 comments fedilink hide all child comments

like, it's caffeine and water and brown, who cares. i drink diet soda so it's no calories, no sugar. versus the stereotype starbucks order, why is soda so demonized

the whole sort of basically woo stuff about oh there's antioxidants there which give you a 3% lower risk of skin cancer after the age of 65 like come on that doesn't count

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

[–] Sethayy 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't mention any regulatory bodies specifically, cause health should be generally referenced from as many sources as possible - but all those numbers are based on theoretical doses on rats, your coefficient of safety is gonna be that close to the theoretical??

Especially when there's probably billions in companies like coke and Pepsi on the line, yet were still trending in the direction of stricter classification - you're gonna risk your entire health on there being no bias???

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You use a (heavily questioned) statement of an organization as a base for your claims when the organization explicitly doesn't support your conclusion. It's a fact that WHO still claims there is no dangers consuming the recommended daily amount.

The method used on rats to estimate the dangers is the method used when estimating dangers every other substances. So the argument is valid as long as you claim that every other substance cause cancer.

Then you end up nibbling on edges of the classic "the great aspartame conspiracy" but what you totally miss that "big sugar" is even more powerfull...

[–] Sethayy 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah I was lying to sound smart they almost for sure do human trials, but you're totally lying too is the funniest part

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Oh... More unsubstantiated claims from you... Well .. have a nice Friday evening.