02-007 · EVIDENCE A · SOURCE-SENSITIVE

Not drinking sugary drinks — even switching to sugar-free ones doesn’t help

不喝含糖饮料,换成无糖的也不算解决

Source cost

There’s no cost involved, nor does it take any extra time. Switching to plain water or sugar-free tea can even save money. The real challenge is breaking the habit of drinking sweet beverages, including sugar-free ones.

Source return

People who drink more than two sugary drinks per day have about a 20% higher chance of dying during the same period compared to those who rarely drink them. Those who consume one to two per day still face a roughly 10% higher risk. Switching to sugar-free versions brings no benefit: individuals drinking two or more sugar-free drinks daily actually have a 25% higher risk of death.

Evidence grade

A

THE LOW-ROI DETOURSatire, not advice

Move “Not drinking sugary drinks — even switching to sugar-free ones doesn’t help” to Future Me's calendar

The excuse

One more exception feels free because the bill arrives outside the current scene.

What feels good now

Today I keep a few minutes, a bit of persistence and avoid interrupting my default routine.

What the source says

The source summarizes the return this way: “People who drink more than two sugary drinks per day have about a 20% higher chance of dying during the same period compared to those who rarely drink them. Those who consume one to two per day still face a roughly 10% higher risk. Switching to sugar-free versions brings no benefit: individuals drinking two or more sugar-free drinks daily actually have a 25% higher risk of death.” Evidence grade A. The original states the population, caveats, and sources; this is not a personal forecast.

THE ENGLISH EDITION

Original recommendation and evidence

Source commit a994b6a0c905

7. Not drinking sugary drinks — even switching to sugar-free ones doesn’t help

Cost: There’s no cost involved, nor does it take any extra time. Switching to plain water or sugar-free tea can even save money. The real challenge is breaking the habit of drinking sweet beverages, including sugar-free ones.

In plain terms: People who drink more than two sugary drinks per day have about a 20% higher chance of dying during the same period compared to those who rarely drink them. Those who consume one to two per day still face a roughly 10% higher risk. Switching to sugar-free versions brings no benefit: individuals drinking two or more sugar-free drinks daily actually have a 25% higher risk of death.

Benefit: Two large U.S. studies followed large groups of people without any subgroup categorization; together they included around 118,000 participants and documented 36,000 deaths. Those drinking two or more sugary drinks daily had a 21% higher risk of death compared to those consuming less than one per month (HR 1.21). For those drinking one to two per day, the risk rose by about 14% (HR 1.14). The European EPIC study followed 450,000 people across 10 countries under similar conditions; again no subgroups were defined. Compared to those drinking less than one sugary drink per month, daily consumers of two or more sugary drinks faced an 8% higher risk (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01–1.16). Those drinking two or more sugar-free drinks daily had a 26% higher risk (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.16–1.35). When all types of soft drinks were considered together, the risk increase was about 17% (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11–1.22).

Evidence grade: A

Sources: Malik VS et al. (2019). Long-Term Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages and Risk of Mortality in US Adults. Circulation. <https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037401>; Mullee A, Romaguera D, Pearson-Stuttard J, et al. (2019). Association Between Soft Drink Consumption and Mortality in 10 European Countries. JAMA Internal Medicine, 179(11), 1479-1490. <https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2478>

Notes: There is ongoing debate regarding sugar-free drinks. The association between sugar-free drinks and health outcomes appears even stronger than that of sugary drinks, which likely reflects reverse causality: individuals who are already overweight or have diabetes tend to switch to sugar-free versions. Therefore, we cannot claim sugar-free drinks are more harmful based on this alone. Nevertheless, this evidence clearly shows that the idea “switching to sugar-free drinks solves the problem” lacks any factual support. The safest choice remains plain water or sugar-free tea. Additionally, these studies rely solely on observational tracking rather than controlled trials; people who consume more sugary drinks often lead less healthy lifestyles overall, which may contribute to the observed higher risk figures.

Read the complete Chinese source and notes

7. 不喝含糖饮料,换成无糖的也不算解决

成本: 不花钱,也不占时间。换成白水或无糖茶还省钱。难在要改掉喝甜饮料的习惯,包括无糖的。

说人话: 每天喝两瓶以上甜饮料的人,同期死亡的概率比几乎不喝的人高约两成。每天一到两瓶的,也高一成多。换成无糖的也没见着好处:每天喝两杯以上代糖饮料的人,反而高约四分之一。

收益: 美国有两项跟踪一群人的大型研究。这两项只记录、不分组,约 11.8 万人、3.6 万例死亡。每天喝 2 份以上的人,死亡风险比每月不到 1 份的人高约 21%(HR 1.21)。每天喝 1–2 份的,高约 14%(HR 1.14)。欧洲 EPIC 跟踪研究只记录、不分组,有 45 万人、10 个国家。每天喝 2 杯以上的人和每月不到 1 杯的人比:含糖软饮这项高约 8%(HR 1.08,95% CI 1.01–1.16)。人工甜味剂饮料(无糖版)高约 26%(HR 1.26,1.16–1.35)。所有软饮合起来算,高约 17%(HR 1.17,1.11–1.22)。

证据等级: A

来源: Malik VS 等 (2019). Long-Term Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially Sweetened Beverages and Risk of Mortality in US Adults. Circulation. <https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037401>;Mullee A, Romaguera D, Pearson-Stuttard J, et al. (2019). Association Between Soft Drink Consumption and Mortality in 10 European Countries. JAMA Internal Medicine, 179(11), 1479-1490. <https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2478>

备注: 争议在无糖饮料上。代糖饮料的关联反而比含糖的更强,这很可能是因果反过来了:已经超重或者得了糖尿病的人,才改喝无糖版。所以别据此说代糖更毒。但它至少说明,「换成无糖就没事」这个说法没有证据支持。换成白水或者无糖茶最稳妥。另外,这类研究只是跟踪记录,没做分组试验,喝甜饮料多的人本来生活方式就更差,所以数字可能偏大。

Author's scope notes: 争议在无糖饮料上。代糖饮料的关联反而比含糖的更强,这很可能是因果反过来了:已经超重或者得了糖尿病的人,才改喝无糖版。所以别据此说代糖更毒。但它至少说明,「换成无糖就没事」这个说法没有证据支持。换成白水或者无糖茶最稳妥。另外,这类研究只是跟踪记录,没做分组试验,喝甜饮料多的人本来生活方式就更差,所以数字可能偏大。

YOUR PRIVATE LIST

Choose what to do with this idea

Original content by eternity4719 under CC BY 4.0. English translation is credited in the source notes. HowToLiveWorse adds a clearly labeled satirical response.

Full source and adaptation notes