Leave a comment

Comments 53

heron61 April 26 2013, 11:08:18 UTC
Each can of sugary drink per day increases your chances of diabetes by 22%

I saw that - I've never had any relative have diabetes, but I'm still reducing my soda & other sugary drink consumption from 3-6 per month to less than that and going for (non-hard) apple cider more when I want a sweet drink.

Reply

andrewducker April 26 2013, 11:39:59 UTC
I did a quick dig about this yesterday - so far as I can tell, having a father with diabetes means you have a 10% chance of developing it at some point, otherwise around a 1% chance. So increasing that to 1.22% isn't a massive change, but it is one people should know about!

With my blood sugar issues I have to drink diet drinks anyway, but so far as I can tell that's _because_ I ate far too much sweet stuff as a kid.

Reply

cartesiandaemon April 26 2013, 12:29:59 UTC
Oh, it's 22% of the chance of getting it, not of 100%? That seems less extreme. I wish we had consistent terminology for those...

Reply

andrewducker April 26 2013, 12:31:25 UTC
I assume so. Fancy looking at the paper?

Reply


la_marquise_de_ April 26 2013, 11:19:03 UTC
Thank you!
The marquis is going to want a waistcoat in that dungeon fabric.

Reply

andrewducker April 26 2013, 11:41:32 UTC
I want curtains!

Reply


bart_calendar April 26 2013, 11:26:37 UTC
They had to do a study on female randiness?

I would think that anyone who has ever dated a woman has noticed that they are far hornier when they are ovulating.

Reply

andrewducker April 26 2013, 11:41:17 UTC
There are lots of things that everyone has noticed that turn out to be false, or more complicated than that. Checking whether it's actually true, and what the details are is definitely worth it.

Also, finding out what the different chemicals do, and nailing down how it works means you can then work towards help people who have problems with it

Reply

bart_calendar April 26 2013, 11:45:01 UTC
But... isn't this essentially proving something that has been observed and proved in all mammals? And, like, completely sensible given nature's reason for creating pink parts?

Reply

andrewducker April 26 2013, 11:47:58 UTC
Have we previously proven that "Estrogen was having a positive effect, but with a two-day lag. Progesterone was having a persistent negative effect, both for current day, day before, and two days earlier." across all mammals? I wasn't aware of that.

Reply


steer April 26 2013, 12:56:25 UTC
Five minutes research produces that the majority of the "Wikipedia's sexism" is pretty much one man and a bot (HotCat) doing a recategorisation with the aim of moving all novelists to female novelists and I think renaming the category to male novelists. The renaming did not start because not all novelists had been recategorised. He's not particularly sanctioned to do this. Just a category nerd. There's lots of them around. He was acting against policy ( ... )

Reply

innerbrat April 26 2013, 13:03:02 UTC
I read Wikipedia categories.

Reply

steer April 26 2013, 13:03:59 UTC
Then you must have noticed they're hopelessly broken?

Reply

innerbrat April 26 2013, 13:05:53 UTC
They are!

I was just pointing out that people use them.

Reply


bohemiancoast April 26 2013, 17:14:57 UTC
The sugary drink research is very interesting. The obvious counter -- drinking soft drinks every day is correlated with other life-shortening behaviour -- is partly addressed in the article, in that when they corrected for BMI the added risk went down to 18%. The fact that it's European research is interesting, because European soft drinks are mostly sweetened with sugar, not the US corn product high-fructose corn syrup. This research also helps to answer the question 'is HFCS worse for you than sugar' (answer, possibly not ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up