"Over the 11-year period, 372 women (11.4%) experienced an eGFR decline of 30% or greater. On multivariate analysis, compared with consumption of less than 1 artificially sweetened soda per month, 2 or more per day doubled the risk of a 30% or greater decline in kidney function (odds ratio 2.02).
The highest consumption category was also associated with increased risk of an annual decline of at least 3 mL/min/1.73 m2 (odds ratio 2.20). On the other hand, there was no increased risk for eGFR decline with less than 2 servings per day of artificially sweetened soda.
Also, neither consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages nor diabetes status was associated with decline in renal function."
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:16:46 -0500, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<ach...@emory.edu> wrote: >"Over the 11-year period, 372 women (11.4%) experienced an eGFR >decline of 30% or greater. On multivariate analysis, compared with >consumption of less than 1 artificially sweetened soda per month, 2 or >more per day doubled the risk of a 30% or greater decline in kidney >function (odds ratio 2.02).
>The highest consumption category was also associated with increased >risk of an annual decline of at least 3 mL/min/1.73 m2 (odds ratio >2.20). On the other hand, there was no increased risk for eGFR decline >with less than 2 servings per day of artificially sweetened soda.
Did they say which sweeteners were used, and test them separately?
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:16:46 -0500, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <ach...@emory.edu> wrote: > >"Over the 11-year period, 372 women (11.4%) experienced an eGFR > >decline of 30% or greater. On multivariate analysis, compared with > >consumption of less than 1 artificially sweetened soda per month, 2 or > >more per day doubled the risk of a 30% or greater decline in kidney > >function (odds ratio 2.02).
> >The highest consumption category was also associated with increased > >risk of an annual decline of at least 3 mL/min/1.73 m2 (odds ratio > >2.20). On the other hand, there was no increased risk for eGFR decline > >with less than 2 servings per day of artificially sweetened soda.
> Did they say which sweeteners were used, and test them separately?
It doesn't seem so. What I find worrying and it maybe a function of the reporting, is that obesity and diabetes should over time have a direct relationship with kidney function decline. Perhaps what was meant was that this was allowed for and the decline in kidney function was greater in those using these sweeteners. And I agree it would be nice to know which these sweetners presents the risk. Unless the mechanism of harm is something in common between artificial sweetners?
Personally I avoid all sweeteners natural, caloric, non-caloric, and artificial. I will admit to consuming some relatively unprocessed fruit in limited portions.
trigonometry1...@gmail.com | wrote: > Steve Hayes wrote: > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > >"Over the 11-year period, 372 women (11.4%) experienced an eGFR > > >decline of 30% or greater. On multivariate analysis, compared with > > >consumption of less than 1 artificially sweetened soda per month, 2 or > > >more per day doubled the risk of a 30% or greater decline in kidney > > >function (odds ratio 2.02).
> > >The highest consumption category was also associated with increased > > >risk of an annual decline of at least 3 mL/min/1.73 m2 (odds ratio > > >2.20). On the other hand, there was no increased risk for eGFR decline > > >with less than 2 servings per day of artificially sweetened soda.
> > Did they say which sweeteners were used, and test them separately?
No.
> It doesn't seem so. What I find worrying and it maybe a function > of the reporting, is that obesity and diabetes should over time > have a direct relationship with kidney function decline. Perhaps > what was meant was that this was allowed for and the decline > in kidney function was greater in those using these sweeteners.
That would be the inferred meaning.
Be hungrier, which truly is healthier especially for the heart and kidneys:
> trigonometry1...@gmail.com | wrote: > > Steve Hayes wrote: > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > >"Over the 11-year period, 372 women (11.4%) experienced an eGFR > > > >decline of 30% or greater. On multivariate analysis, compared with > > > >consumption of less than 1 artificially sweetened soda per month, 2 or > > > >more per day doubled the risk of a 30% or greater decline in kidney > > > >function (odds ratio 2.02).
> > > >The highest consumption category was also associated with increased > > > >risk of an annual decline of at least 3 mL/min/1.73 m2 (odds ratio > > > >2.20). On the other hand, there was no increased risk for eGFR decline > > > >with less than 2 servings per day of artificially sweetened soda.
> > > Did they say which sweeteners were used, and test them separately?
> No.
> > It doesn't seem so. What I find worrying and it maybe a function > > of the reporting, is that obesity and diabetes should over time > > have a direct relationship with kidney function decline. Perhaps > > what was meant was that this was allowed for and the decline > > in kidney function was greater in those using these sweeteners.
> That would be the inferred meaning.
I'd like to infer that meaning but that isn't what is said.
Or are you a fan of synthetic sweeteners? I can see it now Andy with a can of carbonated orange flavor drink sweetened with aspartame. If there is such a product?
What is your economic plan Andy? Should we all get bicycles and got to Walmart only every other month?
A hungrier population is soon to come...............Trig
> > Did they say which sweeteners were used, and test them separately?
No.
> It doesn't seem so. What I find worrying and it maybe a function > of the reporting, is that obesity and diabetes should over time > have a direct relationship with kidney function decline. Perhaps > what was meant was that this was allowed for and the decline > in kidney function was greater in those using these sweeteners.
"That would be the inferred meaning."
And perhaps the wrong inference.
In such studies one must tease out other factors. One common one is that people who make one choice, such as diet sodas, are also making more often other choices which are the valid source of the outcome.
How often do we joke that people load up on fast food and choose the diet soda to avoid extra calories?
trigonometry1...@gmail.com | wrote: > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > > trigonometry1...@gmail.com | wrote: > > > Steve Hayes wrote: > > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > > >"Over the 11-year period, 372 women (11.4%) experienced an eGFR > > > > >decline of 30% or greater. On multivariate analysis, compared with > > > > >consumption of less than 1 artificially sweetened soda per month, 2 or > > > > >more per day doubled the risk of a 30% or greater decline in kidney > > > > >function (odds ratio 2.02).
> > > > >The highest consumption category was also associated with increased > > > > >risk of an annual decline of at least 3 mL/min/1.73 m2 (odds ratio > > > > >2.20). On the other hand, there was no increased risk for eGFR decline > > > > >with less than 2 servings per day of artificially sweetened soda.
> > > > Did they say which sweeteners were used, and test them separately?
> > No.
> > > It doesn't seem so. What I find worrying and it maybe a function > > > of the reporting, is that obesity and diabetes should over time > > > have a direct relationship with kidney function decline. Perhaps > > > what was meant was that this was allowed for and the decline > > > in kidney function was greater in those using these sweeteners.
> > That would be the inferred meaning.
> I'd like to infer that meaning but that isn't what is said.
From what is written, the study is too under-powered (N is too small) to detect small effects such as 11yr renal function decline secondary to either obesity or diabetes.
Be hungrier, which truly is healthier especially for diabetics:
|
