I’m not a researcher or a scientist. Let’s just be clear about that. But I’d like to think I’m a Reasonable Person.
Next is this example: Researchers at the University of Iowa, who reportedly have no background in diet soda or low calorie sweeteners, presented a study in conjunction with the recent American College of Cardiology Conference assessing the potential association of postmenopausal female diet soda drinking and the risk of cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks and strokes. The research has not been peer-reviewed (that matters!), or published in a Scientific Journal. It was an observational study, which means there was no way to prove any cause and effect. I’ve actually seen media reports that have characterized the study as “informal.” In fact, the study author stated, "We only found an association, so we can't say that diet drinks cause these problems."
My Reasonable Conclusion
Soooooo … you can probably guess that I’m leaning toward the review published in the peer-reviewed journal as holding the most weight here.
Haley Stevens, Ph.D., President of the Calorie Control Council, put it this way: “The findings of this study are very speculative and should be considered with caution as they have not been peer reviewed by independent scientists or published in a scientific journal. Additionally, these findings of postmenopausal women are not in line with the majority of the research on the general population which have concluded that there is no association between low-calorie sweeteners and cardiovascular events.”
Again, I’m no researcher or scientist. But as a reasonable person who cares about what she puts in her body, I feel that I know when to take research about my food and drink options seriously, and when it’s best to season it with a grain of salt.
So when presented with these two different research scenarios that involve ingredients I regularly consume, which do you think I thought held more weight? Which do YOU think holds more weight?
Scenario 1
Consider this first example: In July 2013, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology issued a review of research on low calorie sweeteners like aspartame, which is often used in diet sodas (including my beloved Diet Coke). The review involved studying 22 years of scientific research on the safety of aspartame, and among the conclusions was this: “Low-calorie sweeteners are not related to vascular events ….” (Vascular events include strokes and heart attacks. For what it’s worth, that review also concluded this: “With reference to epidemiologic data, evidence on low-calorie sweeteners – and specifically aspartame – does not support the existence of a consistent association with hematopoietic neo- plasms, brain cancer, digestive sites, breast, prostate and several other neoplasms ….” Not sure what all of those are, but I’m glad to know they’re not associated with aspartame.)
Scenario 2Consider this first example: In July 2013, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology issued a review of research on low calorie sweeteners like aspartame, which is often used in diet sodas (including my beloved Diet Coke). The review involved studying 22 years of scientific research on the safety of aspartame, and among the conclusions was this: “Low-calorie sweeteners are not related to vascular events ….” (Vascular events include strokes and heart attacks. For what it’s worth, that review also concluded this: “With reference to epidemiologic data, evidence on low-calorie sweeteners – and specifically aspartame – does not support the existence of a consistent association with hematopoietic neo- plasms, brain cancer, digestive sites, breast, prostate and several other neoplasms ….” Not sure what all of those are, but I’m glad to know they’re not associated with aspartame.)
Next is this example: Researchers at the University of Iowa, who reportedly have no background in diet soda or low calorie sweeteners, presented a study in conjunction with the recent American College of Cardiology Conference assessing the potential association of postmenopausal female diet soda drinking and the risk of cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks and strokes. The research has not been peer-reviewed (that matters!), or published in a Scientific Journal. It was an observational study, which means there was no way to prove any cause and effect. I’ve actually seen media reports that have characterized the study as “informal.” In fact, the study author stated, "We only found an association, so we can't say that diet drinks cause these problems."
My Reasonable Conclusion
Soooooo … you can probably guess that I’m leaning toward the review published in the peer-reviewed journal as holding the most weight here.
Haley Stevens, Ph.D., President of the Calorie Control Council, put it this way: “The findings of this study are very speculative and should be considered with caution as they have not been peer reviewed by independent scientists or published in a scientific journal. Additionally, these findings of postmenopausal women are not in line with the majority of the research on the general population which have concluded that there is no association between low-calorie sweeteners and cardiovascular events.”
Again, I’m no researcher or scientist. But as a reasonable person who cares about what she puts in her body, I feel that I know when to take research about my food and drink options seriously, and when it’s best to season it with a grain of salt.
Photo courtesy of brickdisplaycase.com and is used under Creative Commons
