'People who drank two or more soft drinks a week had an 87% increased risk -- or nearly twice the risk -- of pancreatic cancer compared to individuals consuming no soft drinks'

If I am reading the article right, their own study says different.

The beverage industry protested the results. ''The study has a lot of weaknesses in it," Richard Adamson, PhD, scientific consultant for the American Beverage Association in Washington, D.C., tells WebMD.

One example, he says, are the small numbers of pancreatic cancer cases. He points out that of the 140 cases, 110 of those people did not drink sodas, while 12 had less than two servings a week, and 18 had two or more servings a week.

The trouble with statments like "82% increased risk" is if the risk is 1:10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 even with a 2000% increase it isn't enough to worry about.

My all time favorite wall chart (yes I have one, don't you?) has a list of cancers that as a smoker I'm less likly to get than a non-smoker.

Quite probably due to me dying earlier for smoking...

I wouldn't be too worried about Pancreatic cancer anyways. It is very rare.

You really need to be much more worried about Heart Disease.

I'm gonna die!!!!!

*runs around in circles*

Seriously though, there are so many bad things out there for us. Depressing thought.

I wouldn't be too worried about Pancreatic cancer anyways. It is very rare.

You really need to be much more worried about Heart Disease.

No worry for me.

I wouldn't be too worried about Pancreatic cancer anyways. It is very rare.

You really need to be much more worried about Heart Disease.

I would be much more concerned about Type II Diabetes due to ingesting all the sugars.

Out "...of the 140 cases, 110 of those people did not drink sodas, while 12 had less than two servings a week, and 18 had two or more servings a week."

So:

18 out of 140 diagnosed cases out of 60,524 people for a period of 14 years.

There's no way you can get the statement "People who consume 2 or more sodas a week have an 87% chance of developing pancreatic cancer."

High Fructose Corn Syrup is very bad for your health. If nothing else, avoiding it in all foods, which is not just soda, but even stuff like regular ketchup, will help you lose some weight.

High Fructose Corn Syrup is very bad for your health. If nothing else, avoiding it in all foods, which is not just soda, but even stuff like regular ketchup, will help you lose some weight.

Good genes help a tad too.

There's no way you can get the statement "People who consume 2 or more sodas a week have an 87% chance of developing pancreatic cancer."

True. Look at the numbers behind the statistics, instead of relying on sensationalist editors trying to grab attention by creating bogus headlines.

18 out of 140 people does not constitute a valid sample set.

High Fructose Corn Syrup is very bad for your health. If nothing else, avoiding it in all foods, which is not just soda, but even stuff like regular ketchup, will help you lose some weight.

And Asparatame, don't get me started on that...let's just say I started to lose my vision, stopped drinking my diet sodas, and I'm back at 20/20...

If you want a soda, get one with REAL sugar. Pepsi Throwback? Mexican Coke? Jones Soda, Hansen's Sodas! All sorts...

But normally I just drink plain tea now.

I've been drinking Zevia brand soda for the past two weeks instead of regular sodas.

Ingredients: triple filtered carbonated water, natural erythritol, citric acid, stevia and annatto.

My body's detoxing now from the lack of sugar, but hopefully it'll be worth it.

18 out of 140 people does not constitute a valid sample set.

I'm trying to get my mind around how statistics works:

What if it was '18 baby's pajamas caught fire out of 140 babies'? To me that seems valid. Even though there are a million babies.

"" wrote:

18 out of 140 people does not constitute a valid sample set.

I'm trying to get my mind around how statistics works:

What if it was '18 baby's pajamas caught fire out of 140 babies'? To me that would seem to be valid. Even though there are a million babies.

I would suspect Sebastian in that case.

What about the 12 or so I drink once every couple of weeks when gaming?

I call this study a blatant lie based on the grounds that soda is a tasty beverage, and if it could give me cancer it would be very inconvenient.

And Asparatame, don't get me started on that...

I've heard as much, though in my case, I'm not so sure. I have hypoglycemia, which is essentially the opposite of diabetes; that is, my blood sugar levels sometimes drop to dangerous lows. For most of my life I would have these blood sugar drops regularly, at least three or four times a month. It's a terrible feeling, sort of like starving to death. I get weak and shaky, covered in cold sweat, and have a sudden voracious appetite for anything sweet. Anywho...

I used to drink regular soda all the time, until a friend of mine (who was a biochemistry major) suggested that drinking diet was much healthier. So I decided to give it a try. I've had nothing but diet for nearly two years now, and since then I can count on two hands the number of times my blood sugar's dropped. I strongly suspect the switch in drinks is to thank, as my diet has otherwise remained unchanged.

Food (or drink) for thought.

Meh. I drink diet soda mainly because that's 110 calories I would rather not have. Especially when you look at the pile of cans some of my fellow gamers and I have at the end of our sessions. We have a rather large friend who games with our group, and it’s not hard to see why he’s so big when you realize the amount of soda he drank during the session alone should have made up almost all the calories he should be taking in for the day.

I'm trying to get my mind around how statistics works:

What if it was '18 baby's pajamas caught fire out of 140 babies'? To me that seems valid. Even though there are a million babies.

In you example, if 18 babies pajamas caught fire out of 140 babies, it might mean that 122 babies slept nekkid. Or maybe some parents smoked. Or maybe some kids were playing with matches, skewing the results.

Result: There is no causation.

Alternatively, ask "How many people drank a lot of soda but didn't develop pancreatic cancer?" My guess is that the answer to that question might be "many." Meaning, maybe it's better to drink a lot of soda, because 99/100 heavy soda drinkers didn't get pancreatic cancer.

For the record, the original story said there was an 87% increase in pancreatic cancer, right? That number needs to be 100% in any valid statistical survey to even begin to link a specific act with an outcome.

Again, this study didn't actually find anything, but an editor wanted a scary headline so that people would read the article.

Theses are some segments from The Belly Fat Cure by Jorge Cruise.

"There are five sweeteners that I suggest you watch out for:
saccharin (pink packets), aspartame (blue packets), sucralose
(yellow packets), high fructose corn syrup, and agave nectar.

The first three are known as excitotoxins, which contain
neurotransmitters that "overexcite" neurons in the brain,
causing degeneration and even death in these critically important nerve
cells.

Aspartame. Studies have shown that it can cause imbalances in your brain; aggravate migraines; and affect your nervous system, your moods, and even your quality of sleep. A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found a connection between aspartame consumption and seizures.

Sucralose. (600 times sweeter than sugar.) Commonly consumed amounts
of sucralose reduce the amount of "good" gut bacteria by 50 percent. Sucralose also produced significant weight gain.

Good Sweeteners: Sugar Alcohols:
Xylitol, Erythritol, and Maltitol - which add sweetness to foods and drinks without additional nutrients and virtually no calories."

For the record, the original story said there was an 87% increase in pancreatic cancer, right? That number needs to be 100% in any valid statistical survey to even begin to link a specific act with an outcome.

Normally we (meaning the scientific community, of which I am a member) perform statistical tests to determine the likelihood that the increase is correlable with the behavior. These tests are generally based on actual statistical comparsons of the number of observations and the "spread" (standard deviation, etc.) of the data. We don't just say "double or more" -- if I understand your post correctly, that might well be your personal definition of "valid," but isn't a generally accepted one.

There's absolutely no proof of causation however. It's interesting enough for followup studies certainly, but there's no way of telling what in regular soda might be responsible, or if it's even the soda involved at all. People who guzzle soda are going to be more likely to be obese, and that by itself, or other food consumed by out of shape folks might be responsible. You can't just cherry-pick one possible variable, find a correlation, and claim wow X causes Y!

As others have said, heart disease from obesity is more likely to kill you by orders of magnitude than any putative increase in pancreatic cancer.

And the simple sugars in regular soda consumed in equivalent amounts to that of any artificial sweeteners in diet soda needed to produce -any- negative effect in lab animals is far more of an issue. A box car of fructose is going to harm you a lot quicker than anything a box car of aspertame might do.

And the simple sugars in regular soda consumed in equivalent amounts to that of any artificial sweeteners in diet soda needed to produce -any- negative effect in lab animals is far more of an issue. A box car of fructose is going to harm you a lot quicker than anything a box car of aspertame might do.

That was my friend's point as well. And while I may take a lot of what the guy says with a grain of salt, the fact that he had a degree in bio-chem did much to convince me. Namely, as Todd said, the sheer volume of artificial sweetener you need to consume to develop negative side-effects is massive.

Oh, and on a semi-related topic, don't buy the argument that corn syrup and granulated cane sugar are the same thing. They most certainly are not. Each has a unique molecular structure, and your body treats each differently.

Normally we (meaning the scientific community, of which I am a member) perform statistical tests to determine the likelihood that the increase is correlable with the behavior. These tests are generally based on actual statistical comparsons of the number of observations and the "spread" (standard deviation, etc.) of the data. We don't just say "double or more" -- if I understand your post correctly, that might well be your personal definition of "valid," but isn't a generally accepted one.

I'm a member of the scientific community as well. I am well aware of the necessity of sample size vs correlable behavior.

I'm also posting on an RPG forum, replying to people who don't have statistical analysis tools at their disposal. Therefore, using a general 100% is appropriate. Especially with SUCH A SMALL SAMPLE SIZE.

It's important to note that the article doesn't tell us what the rate of "lotsa" soda drinkers is among the 60524 participants is. Because with that number, one could determine the statistical association of pancreatic cancer to soda.

If someone else wants to waste their money and buy access to the article, here's the formula you need:

(18 / 122) / [(non-cancer lotsa soda people) / 62524] = relative risk.

If relative risk is 0.5 - 2.0, the number could be explained by quality of the sample set. In statistician's terms, "weak statistical association." In layman's terms: Pure chance. (Note that the article uses "87% increase." That correlates to 1.87, if case you don't have a calculator.)

Now, if they dose rats, control the variables (like the possibility all the high-soda drinkers also worked at a benzene manufacturer), and a high number of rats develop pancreatic cancer, I'll put more stock in their initial study. But right now, they've got a finger in the air, and their numbers could be the result of chance.

For the record, this is one of the problems of using statistics with medicine. Most diseases have relatively small sample sets to use. The best thing that this sort of study could be used for is justification to create a trial with lab animals to determine if there is actually correlation between soda and pancreatic cancer.

But until the researchers get some real correlation, I'll keep drinking my soda.

I'm also posting on an RPG forum, replying to people who don't have statistical analysis tools at their disposal. If someone else wants to waste their money and buy access to the article, here's the formula you need...

Please don't misunderstand me -- I'm not in any way defending the article; rather, I'm trying to stick up for the general level of education of people on this forum -- RPG-related or not, very little "babying" is generally needed here.

Note that the article uses "87% increase." That correlates to 1.87, if case you don't have a calculator.

Note that you used "that number [the increase] needs to be 100%." That correlates to 2.0, calculator or no.

I like chocolate milk!

I like chocolate milk!

Theses are some segments from The Belly Fat Cure by Jorge Cruise.

"There are five sweeteners that I suggest you watch out for:
saccharin (pink packets), aspartame (blue packets), sucralose
(yellow packets), high fructose corn syrup, and agave nectar.

Can someone enlighten me on the dangers inherent in agave nectar? I never heard anything bad about it...

I'm gonna die!!!!!

*runs around in circles*

Seriously though, there are so many bad things out there for us. Depressing thought.

I bring you ...

The Great Truth!

The probability of death over the course of your lifetime is 100%.

In service,

Rich

Go to www.drgames.org - the Original Dr. Games Site.

Can someone enlighten me on the dangers inherent in agave nectar? I never heard anything bad about it...

Mainly, just the microscopic larvae of the agave bug that exist in the nectar. Not a problem with properly processed nectar. It's the stuff that comes out of Mexico that people have to worry about.

Worst case scenario is that the little buggers eat through the thin tissue in the throat to enter the blood stream. You end up coughing up blood for about a day, but the human body's defenses kick into high gear. The larvae aren't a match for our white blood cells.

I don't think there's been a death from a larvae infestation in about a decade or so.

I bring you ...

The Great Truth!

The probability of death over the course of your lifetime is 100%.

See, this is where I feel the need to baby people who don't understand statistics. Someone was ranting about (x) and how it leads to 20% more deaths. I calmly pointed out that that was impossible, since nothing increases or decreases the chance of death; that number is always 100%. Turns out some people not only don't understand statistics, but also don't have a sense of humor.

I bring you ...

The Great Truth!

The probability of death over the course of your lifetime is 100%.

NOBODY GETS OUT ALIVE!!

DrGames wrote:

I bring you ...

The Great Truth!

The probability of death over the course of your lifetime is 100%.

NOBODY GETS OUT ALIVE!!

maybe

DrGames wrote:

I bring you ...

The Great Truth!

The probability of death over the course of your lifetime is 100%.

NOBODY GETS OUT ALIVE!!

{prudently orders Barbie: My First Phylactery from Amazon.com}

stardust wrote:

Theses are some segments from The Belly Fat Cure by Jorge Cruise.

"There are five sweeteners that I suggest you watch out for:
saccharin (pink packets), aspartame (blue packets), sucralose
(yellow packets), high fructose corn syrup, and agave nectar.

Can someone enlighten me on the dangers inherent in agave nectar? I never heard anything bad about it...

I'd be wary of taking Jorge Cruise's advice on anything, given that among other things he's happily pimped for various health products, some of which were banned or found for false advertising.

What's wrong with agave?

EDIT: Good one, Ambrosia.

Orthos wrote:

DrGames wrote:

I bring you ...

The Great Truth!

The probability of death over the course of your lifetime is 100%.

NOBODY GETS OUT ALIVE!!

{prudently orders Barbie: My First Phylactery from Amazon.com}

LOL

When I tell students this, there are still some that look a little shocked.

When I tell students this, there are still some that look a little shocked.

When you tell your students what?

That they--all of them--are going to die. No kidding.

Unless they perfect digital soul uploading. Then is is real, or is it Memorex?

And I'll continue to drink soda, eat red meat, sugar, caffeine and anything else I damn well please because quite frankly I don't want to see the north side of 80 and endure the many humiliations seniors have to put up with daily. I'd rather have a happy few deacdes and stroke out rather than piss and s#%* myself to death in some hospital bed.

That they--all of them--are going to die. No kidding.

Are they just in shock that it will happen?

also have you read any of the war against the cthorr books?

Unless they perfect digital soul uploading. Then is is real, or is it Memorex?

memorex of a memorex.

War of Cthorr? No.

Amazon, here I come.

War of Cthorr? No.

Amazon, here I come.

Good books just wish he would finish the series.

The reason I bring it up is the 3rd book. I think it is the third book anyway. The entire story has the main characters locked in a hotel conference room with a guy who has a legal order from the president to kill anyone who does not finish the conference. the jest of the conference : you are going to die, and I have men here with guns to do so. Everyone goes through the stages of grief until they get to acceptance and then get sent off on their way so they can accomplish their mission and not worry if they are going to die or not. For em it was a very hard book to finish but the next one makes up for it. That and the main character stopping his whining and kicking ass because he now no longer has an excuse not to.

Thanks. I started looking at the entry on Wikipedia, but it seems too spoilerific.

Thanks. I started looking at the entry on Wikipedia, but it seems too spoilerific.

yeah I gave enough spoilers myself. Read the books you should not be disappointed.