Jump to content
The World News Media

Fruit juice increases your risk of early death – even MORE than soda, study finds


Guest Indiana

Recommended Posts

  • Guest
Guest Indiana
  • The study is the first ever comparison of 100% fruit juice with soda
  • Researchers from Emory and Cornell found excessive soda consumption increased the risk of early death by 11%
  • Excessive consumption of fruit juice increased the risk of early death by 24% 
  • An expert described the study as important but said there was no risk from a single 150ml glass of fruit juice per day 

Consuming fruit juices is just as bad for your health and likely to lead to an early death as drinking cola or lemonade, research suggests. 

A new study found an increased risk of dying early from any cause for people who consumed a lot of sugary drinks. 

US researchers compared, for the first time, 100 percent fruit juices with sugar-sweetened beverages such as cola and lemonade. 

They found very similar associations for both fruit juices and sugary drinks with an increased risk of dying early, though they said more research was needed. 

An expert described the study as important but said there was no risk from a single 150ml glass of fruit juice per day. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7041549/Fruit-juice-increases-risk-early-death-soda-study-finds.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

  • Views 246
  • Replies 2
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Member

That is why it is best to make your own juice out of natural fruits vs. buying the processed ones, artificial silliness, etc.

Healthy choices benefits the soul, and it benefits a healthy lifestyle for the household. Also wise to keep the Fructose levels on a limit, if the goal is fat loss.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 5/18/2019 at 11:00 PM, Guest Indiana said:

US researchers compared, for the first time, 100 percent fruit juices with sugar-sweetened beverages such as cola and lemonade. 

We gave a lot of 100 percent fruit juices to our kids, and now all of them have been telling us for several years that fruit juices, even fully natural juices, are not healthy.

It's because sugar from fruit is just another kind of sugar. It is essentially no healthier than sugars that comes from cane, beets, or corn. Without reading the study yet I'm also guessing that people tend to limit their intake of sodas due to warnings, and even exaggeratedly false warnings, and also the fact that carbonation can help you feel more full. "Excessive" soda drinkers have limits set by peers, doctors, and "themselves."

"Excessive" fruit juice drinkers have no such limits. It is common knowledge how much "empty" caloric content is in a can of soda. But most people don't see a calorie warning on the side of a glass of lemonade. Orange juice, apple juice, etc., are thought of as healthy by moms and other parents. And the second or third glass goes down smoothly. There is no self-limiting tang of carbonation.

Of course, the study is still surprising, otherwise we wouldn't be reading about it. This could also mean that the actual content of the study is inconclusive or is being misinterpreted. Most studies are misinterpreted by the time someone finds a surprising title to put on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
    • I'm not bothered by being singled out, as you seem to be accustomed to defending and protecting yourselves, but it's a good idea to keep your dog on a leash. Speaking of which, in a different thread, TTH mentioned that it would be great if everyone here shared their life stories. As both of you are the librarians here, I kindly ask you to minimize any signs of intimidation or insincerity. It is you people who need to be "banned" here. However, it is quite evident that you hold a negative influence, which God recognizes, therefore you are banned from your own conscience in His eyes.
  • Members

    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,410

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.