A new, international study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association has compared the risk of atrial fibrillation in those who drink soft drinks with sugar, soft drinks and fruit juice.
Over 200,000 people, who did not have atrial fibrillation, were followed up for a period of almost ten years. Over the years, the researchers documented over 9,000 cases of atrial fibrillation.
Based on the findings of the study, the researchers believe that the risk of developing atrial fibrillation is 20 percent greater in those who drink artificially sweetened drinks, such as soft drinks, compared to those who drink water.
The study concluded that there was a ten percent greater likelihood of atrial fibrillation in the group who drank soft drinks compared to those who drank soft drinks with sugar.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has previously warned against the use of artificial sweeteners. Consumption of artificial sweeteners can be harmful in the long term, according to the organisation.
The article continues below the adThe article continues below the ad
Professor receives criticism
In atrial fibrillation, the heart beats irregularly, and often too fast. The attack can vary from a few minutes to up to a few days. In the most serious cases, atrial fibrillation can develop into stroke and heart failure, according to Norwegian Health.
Kjetil Retterstøl is professor at the Department of Basic Medical Sciences at the University of Oslo and senior physician at the Lipid Clinic at Oslo University Hospital. He expresses skepticism about the study to TV 2.
Retterstøl believes soft drinks are water with flavor added.
– The biological effect of drinking soft drinks is like drinking water. And the only thing that is damaged by it are the teeth, he says to TV 2.
He clarifies to ABC Nyheter that he of course prefers water, but switching from sugary soft drinks to soft drinks is easier than water for some.
The article continues below the adThe article continues below the ad
Professor Kjetil Retterstøl says it is incredibly difficult to carry out dietary studies in a neutral way and prove causality. Photo: University of Oslo
The fact that Retterstøl says that the biological effect of drinking soft drinks is like drinking water causes nutritional biologist and university lecturer Marit Kolby to react.
– In the nutrition community, there has long been an opinion that soft drinks are harmless, and can be consumed in large quantities without any negative health effects, because they are calorie-free. But evaluating food and drink based on calories testifies to a very outdated and insufficient understanding of our biology. We know that very many substances in food and drink have biological effects completely independent of their calorie content. We have never examined the effects of all the substances found in soft drinks in the combinations they are used in, says Kolby to ABC Nyheter.
The article continues below the ad
– Directly irresponsible
ABC Nyheter has had Kolby look at the study. She believes it goes on top of other studies that have shown that soft drinks appear to be at least as problematic as sugary soft drinks, and that soft drinks are linked to negative health effects that we had not anticipated.
Kolby bases his statements on research which shows that both those who drink soft drinks and those who drink sugary drinks, even in small quantities, have a much greater risk of cardiovascular disease than those who do not drink soft drinks.
– The effect actually seems to be slightly greater in those who drink soft drinks. We also see that people with diabetes who drink soft drinks do not have better blood sugar regulation than those who drink sugary drinks, explains Kolby.
The article continues below the ad
She is clear that health personnel, based on these findings, should be absolutely clear that water should be our drink of thirst.
The article continues below the ad
– It is downright irresponsible when doctors acquit the consumption of large amounts of soft drinks daily, as we have seen examples of in the media, she says.
Marit Kolby is clear that healthcare personnel should be absolutely clear that water should be our thirst quencher. Photo: Terje Bendiksby / NTB
– Incredibly difficult
In addition to Kolby’s criticism, ABC Nyheter has presented several studies to Retterstøl, including this one, where the researchers claim that there is an equally high risk of cardiovascular disease when consuming soft drinks as from sugary drinks.
– I am quite used to professionals like Marit and I disagreeing. I rely on a number of high-quality studies that have shown that frequent use of sugary soda is bad for both blood sugar and body weight. When it comes to dietary studies, it is incredibly difficult to conduct them in a neutral way and prove causality, but it is easy to demonstrate an association. There can always be doubts about the results, says Retterstøl to ABC Nyheter.
Kolby has the following comment on this:
The article continues below the ad
– The central point here is not whether two professionals “agree”. The key point is that studies that have investigated the consumption of soft drinks and sugary drinks, compared to those who do not drink soft drinks, do not support that soft drinks are a better alternative. Then we should no longer claim that switching to soft drinks is a good alternative.
– I also don’t understand why we should downplay the importance of tooth damage from soft drinks, because when we warn against sugar, this is largely based precisely on tooth damage. Add to that the fact that drinking soft drinks, regardless of type, is a significant contribution to both climate and environmental problems, that we now spend more money on soft drinks in the shop and that many people find themselves addicted to these drinks. The soft drink is thus a textbook example that demonstrates the ultra-processed products’ purpose: to displace what we consumers actually need for companies’ profits.
