Artificial sweeteners getting pissed out - bad for your kidneys?

[fromderinside]

No. Opinion is always wrong. Less so when supported by studies.

No. Most opinion is grabbed from one's arse.

No. Second hand opinions are always wrong even whne supported by research.

Research is research. Summaries of research are reviews. If you can design an experiment from the material it might be satisfactory. If not go to primary sources.

Hard ass FDI retired here.

What are you babbling about?

Physicians follow practice guidelines that are OPINION drawn from the research.

That is the way modern medicine works.

Studies do not give us facts. They give data that needs to be interpreted. And interpretation is opinion.

Again. Try reading instead of answering a question, not in my post, that you want to answer.

For instance where and when in the world does 'most opinion' refer to physicians?

 

[untermensche]

What are you babbling about?

Physicians follow practice guidelines that are OPINION drawn from the research.

That is the way modern medicine works.

Studies do not give us facts. They give data that needs to be interpreted. And interpretation is opinion.

Again. Try reading instead of answering a question, not in my post, that you want to answer.

For instance where and when in the world does 'most opinion' refer to physicians?

Doctors don't work based on individual studies. They use practice guidelines.

Which are opinions of what all the studies demonstrate.

That is all that is possible. To have an opinion about the results of a study.

So all your talk about "opinion" is confusing.

 

[Speakpigeon]

This study in Nature http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13793.htmlclaims to experimental data showing a causal impact of artificial sweeteners on glucose intolerance, and thus likely to diabetes.

Here we demonstrate that consumption of commonly used NAS formulations drives the development of glucose intolerance through induction of compositional and functional alterations to the intestinal microbiota.

On a separate note, other research has shown that artificial sweeteners wind up leading the brain to unlearn its association between sweet flavors and high calories. That association usually makes people who eat sugar feel full and limits their intake. Undermining that link means that when people who eat lots of fake sugars but then also eat real sugar, they eat more of it. IOW, if you drink tons of "sugar-free" soda (as many people do), you'll wind up consuming more real sugars in other parts of your diet.

I accept I don't know this is true. But I believe it is. So I will follow up on it and give up on sweeteners. Here, I was just saved. Hallelujah.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Again. Try reading instead of answering a question, not in my post, that you want to answer.

For instance where and when in the world does 'most opinion' refer to physicians?

Doctors don't work based on individual studies. They use practice guidelines.

Which are opinions of what all the studies demonstrate.

That is all that is possible. To have an opinion about the results of a study.

So all your talk about "opinion" is confusing.

I agree with that common sense observation.

Doctors also have their personal clinical experience.

They may also not take the time to read reviews and choose instead to listen to pharmaceutical sales rep.

Stuff happens.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Again. Try reading instead of answering a question, not in my post, that you want to answer.

For instance where and when in the world does 'most opinion' refer to physicians?

Doctors don't work based on individual studies. They use practice guidelines.

Which are opinions of what all the studies demonstrate.

That is all that is possible. To have an opinion about the results of a study.

So all your talk about "opinion" is confusing.

Its confusing because you're confusing it. Most is a category that generally excludes doctors unless you are saying doctors are just like joe sixpack. I see in your post you don't believe that so why do you go and confuse 'most' with doctors?

Obviously you are just looking for a nit to pick. I sometimes include dentists among doctors. One dentist I know was publishing clinical papers well into his sixties when ALS suddenly took him from us. Pick on that nit.

 

[untermensche]

Doctors don't work based on individual studies. They use practice guidelines.

Which are opinions of what all the studies demonstrate.

That is all that is possible. To have an opinion about the results of a study.

So all your talk about "opinion" is confusing.

Its confusing because you're confusing it. Most is a category that generally excludes doctors unless you are saying doctors are just like joe sixpack. I see in your post you don't believe that so why do you go and confuse 'most' with doctors?

Obviously you are just looking for a nit to pick. I sometimes include dentists among doctors. One dentist I know was publishing clinical papers well into his sixties when ALS suddenly took him from us. Pick on that nit.

That's not it at all.

This is in response to your diatribe about "opinion".

That is all there is, opinions. Studies do not speak for themselves. People have opinions about what they say.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Doctors and other medical practitioners are too busy to do individual research or take part in research as they will not be able to work 10 to 14 hours a day. They rely on their knowledge from experience and from reading the research results of others. It is hard enough for them to keep updated on existing research.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Doctors and other medical practitioners are too busy to do individual research or take part in research as they will not be able to work 10 to 14 hours a day. They rely on their knowledge from experience and from reading the research results of others. It is hard enough for them to keep updated on existing research.

It's very hard to impossible for them to "keep up." Blood pressure is a good example.

We now know that systolic pressure - the first number - is a better gage of risk for disease, and not diastolic - the second number. But there are many docs out there still relying on diastolic pressure. The word has simply not gotten around adequately yet. Diastolic pressure as an indicator was a guess, an opinion, and never tested until fairly recently.

And artificial sweeteners - use at your own risk.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's very hard to impossible for them to "keep up." Blood pressure is a good example.

We now know that systolic pressure - the first number - is a better gage of risk for disease, and not diastolic - the second number. But there are many docs out there still relying on diastolic pressure. The word has simply not gotten around adequately yet. Diastolic pressure as an indicator was a guess, an opinion, and never tested until fairly recently.

I noticed that diastolic pressure often goes up (resp. down) on measures where systolic pressure goes suddenly down (resp. up) whereas I guess you would expect the two to go up and down in synch as they do most of the time. Do you know of any good explanation for that?
EB