this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
146 points (100.0% liked)

Chat

7508 readers
17 users here now

Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For me I say that a truck with a cab longer than its bed is not a truck, but an SUV with an overgrown bumper.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Omegamanthethird@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago

I think it's important to note that this was strictly an observational study that they explicitly describe as "conditional". They don't go into the how or why of it. It could be that it's a negligible change or that participants overindulge elsewhere because they cut it out of sweeteners or that the most at-risk use sugar alternatives or that they lose weight in the short term (mentioned in the article) before reaching their new maintained weight.

Honestly, I think the last part is very likely, or a mix of many of those. They say it doesn't have a long-term effect, although it can have a short-term effect. So if you decrease your calorie intake a little, you'll lose weight until your calorie output matches (less weight mean less effort to move).

So, it's not an end-all solution.