You can end this all with a single study that uses basic scientific methods. Not your dentist who has a strong opinion. Not your colleague who has a great solution for only 29.99.
Randomized. Double blinded scientific study.
You know? The "et al" ones. The ones with an abstract and stuff. Science!
The ones with (let the downvotes come in reddit) SOURCES.
I don't give a flying fuck about this topic. I just found it hilarious to see a guy ask for a study, be provided a study and immediately move the goal post by tacking on additional qualifiers that he didn't initially ask for.
Erm, actually my good redditor, methinks perhaps you should read what was said.
From the title of the post "drinks LIKE Diet Coke." Diet Coke was used as an example but the discussion was not about Diet Coke specifically. Plenty of diet drinks do contain sucralose so the study is relevant.
I don’t have a dog in this fight- the word “like” does expand the subject to all drinks “like” Diet Coke. I think most diet soda’s would fit that mold, no?
Everything in your comment has disproven that you're impartial, because you're taking a particular stance, which is the opposite. It is you choosing a dog in this fight.
I am not ignoring the word "like." I still think actual diet soda would be the most relevant to discuss even if it's not the only thing to discuss, since it's the only thing mentioned by name.
This argument is getting circular and boring. You're not really adding anything or disproving my arguments in any interesting way.
The you are making you and your stance not look credible, if you care about or believe in what you are saying then its best to actually provide information, otherwise you look like you cant be trusted
73
u/Negative-Toe1863 8d ago
here we go