this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2023

289 points (89.6% liked)

News

36292 readers

2591 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

289

A Popular Sweetener Was Linked to Increased Anxiety in Generations of Mice (www.sciencealert.com)

submitted 2 years ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/news@lemmy.world

166 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] smooth_tea@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240046429

[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I can't tell what this is supposed to convey. They asked for a study. You give a bare url to an abstract with the quote

there is no clear consensus on whether non-sugar sweeteners are effective for long-term weight loss or maintenance, or if they are linked to other long-term health effects at intakes within the ADI.

Are you agreeing with the post you are replying to?

[–] smooth_tea@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They asked for a study. You give a bare url to an abstract with the quote

Perhaps you could download the entire meta study that is linked next to the abstract and go through it? And why does it matter whether I'm agreeing with the post?

From all the years of reading about artificial sugar studies, it's clear to me that there could be a risk but it is complex and varies from person to person, I find it misplaced to shout that there is absolutely no risk involved. To quote the study:

Result of this review largely agree with those of other recent systematic reviews, in that replacing sugars with NSS in the short term results in reductions in body weight, with little impact on other cardiometabolic risk factors, but is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality in the longer term.

[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Perhaps you could download the entire meta study that is linked next to the abstract and go through it?

No, I am not refereeing a paper because some commenter links it in a web forum. Why would you think that's even close to what anyone should do in this environment?

[–] smooth_tea@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So let me get this straight, someone asks for a study, I provide the study of studies, which you misjudge originally for being only an abstract, and then when I correct you and tell you it's a study, suddenly it's not good enough. What do you actually want?

[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

What do you actually want?

I want conversation. Bare links are not that. Looking at the link led me to believe you providing evidence for the quack who was professing absolute safety.

Scientifically, I agree with you. I was asking the "absolute safety" commentor to provide context to studies to lead one to that conclusion. I would have been happy to read the same from you.

You have a lot to say for someone who is happy to slap a url down and move along. :)