113
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by _number8_@lemmy.world to c/casualconversation@lemmy.world

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
[-] Mindlight@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

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@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Mindlight@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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

this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
113 points (100.0% liked)

[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation

6596 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

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS