If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Yet another obesity related study of carbonated drinks that will leave you soda pressed   (sfgate.com) divider line 71
    More: Obvious, soft drinks, carbonations, Richard Drew, obesity  
•       •       •

2483 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Sep 2012 at 1:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-22 05:17:36 PM
ww1.hdnux.com

The article linked is all over the place.

The experiments are mixed in with the opinions of the researchers.

Which part is correlation and which parts are the scientists guessing at causation?

After 18 months, the sugary-drink group weighed 2 pounds more on average than the other group.


Is 2lbs significant? I can weigh up to 10lbs differently depending on what I ate for dinner last night.

The 2lb could be the extra water retained from the salt in drinking the soda.


I don't think we should be using iffy studies to base national policies. There have been too many of them already and it's those policies that have gotten us here.
 
2012-09-22 05:21:36 PM

thornhill: alice_600: StealthStalker: thornhill: Fark Me To Tears: Jon iz teh kewl: am i the only one that GAINED 40 lbs as a result of QUITTING SODA.

Did you quit soda altogether, or did you continue with diet soda? People I know who've used diet sodas as a substitute generally don't change their other eating habits. In fact, because they're drinking diet soda, they feel like it's okay to indulge more in the high-calorie foods they crave. Whereas, people who give up ALL sodas -- myself included -- had a tendency to change their eating habits for the better. I would typically drink soda while indulging in other foods that weren't necessarily good for me. When I dropped the soda, I lost the urge to eat a lot of that stuff, or even if I did occasionally eat some of it, I ate much less of it. The taste of the soda had made the other stuff seem more appealing to me.

No one seems to know for sure, but a lot of studies comparing diet soda drinkers vs non-soda drinkers show that overtime the diet soda drinkers end up weighing more than the non-soda drinkers. One of the theories is that the artificial sweetener fuels your appetite, pushing you to eat more.

And I think you're right about how when you do one thing that is really healthy -- giving up all sweetened drinks, including diet -- you begin to be more conscious about what you eat.

A few years ago I decided to cut out meat during the week for health reasons. As a result of researching my non-meat options, I ended up cutting out pasta and rice, replacing them with grains like farro and barely, eating a ton more beans, and adding things like tempeh to my diet. It's amazing how inexpensive a non-meat diet is -- I buy beans and grains by the pound for ridiculously low prices at the Whole Foods bulk section.

But I love Pasta and Rice. I could live the rest of my days on those two items. :(

You have to be careful you can become anorexic be weary of vegetarianism and vegan diets. I got sick doing it and had to eat meat agai ...



Honey is pure fructose, esp if you get the cheap ones since the Chinese found a way to remove pollen from the honey.

Also, in the vegan diet, protein is not the problem, it's not getting enough fat. Diabetes is known in India as the vegan's disease.
And, getting it from soyabean/canola oil isn't good.
 
2012-09-22 05:39:29 PM

GilRuiz1: That adds weight to the push for taxes, portion limits like the one just adopted in New York City, and other policies to curb consumption of soda, juice drinks and sports beverages sweetened with sugar.

Ah, I wondered when they'd take this spin.

I quit drinking soft drinks years ago because I wanted to, not because someone passed a law forcing me to.

[i224.photobucket.com image 480x600]


GilRuiz1, not understanding a damn thing since 2004.
 
2012-09-22 06:02:02 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: GilRuiz1, not understanding a damn thing since 2004.


Oh, I understand how it works quite well:

When it's those other guys wagging their disapproving finger, then it's fascism and meddling in people's private business.

When it's our guys wagging their disapproving finger, then it's sensible and good and there is nothing wrong with it at all. 

Prohibitionists come in all stripes, but they're only wrong and bad and dumb when it's someone else's prohibitionists.
 
2012-09-22 07:12:12 PM

mr0x: [ww1.hdnux.com image 628x464]

The article linked is all over the place.

The experiments are mixed in with the opinions of the researchers.

Which part is correlation and which parts are the scientists guessing at causation?

After 18 months, the sugary-drink group weighed 2 pounds more on average than the other group.

Is 2lbs significant? I can weigh up to 10lbs differently depending on what I ate for dinner last night.

The 2lb could be the extra water retained from the salt in drinking the soda.


I don't think we should be using iffy studies to base national policies. There have been too many of them already and it's those policies that have gotten us here.


I hope that national policy would be based on the actual reports that the scientists wrote, and not a dumbed down rehash for a newspaper (assuming that the journalist that wrote it isn't an idiot to boot). Of course, with the Republican party these days I think it would be a step up if they'd even read a newspaper summary of some actual science.
 
2012-09-22 07:33:00 PM

greentea1985: Gwyrddu: MaudlinMutantMollusk: I like how they just refer to HFCS as 'sugar' now

Being as HFCS is a mixture of sucrose and glucose, both of which are sugar, I'm not seeing what is deceptive about it. It's not the same thing as table sugar, but both table sugar and HFCS both lie in the category of sugar.

Our bodies are designed to optimally process glucose, not fructose. One of the main issues with HFCS is that the biological pathways that tell your to stop eating are triggered by glucose. It's less of a problem with sucrose because glucose and fructose are in even proportions. HFCS has an uneven proportion so the pathways don't get triggered and people overeat.


Plus, HFCS doesn't taste as sweet, so more of it gets used. Thus why HFCS sweetened drinks feel gloopy compared to cane- or beet-sugar drinks of the same sweetness.

Also, it means you're eating more sugar for the same effect.
 
2012-09-22 07:37:00 PM

Corn_Fed:
Start drinking plain, boring old water, for a change. You'll feel (and weigh) a lot better.


Actually, if I drink nothing but water, I start to feel anemic very quickly. Coffee and tea, man, coffee and tea.

/and sometimes Coke but rarely more than 2l/day

/have weighed 190 for the past 16-17 years, have metabolism of a hummingbird

/NECTAR, I NEED NECTAR
 
2012-09-22 08:02:23 PM
Proud to say I've only had 5 pops since March.

/Why yes, I have lost weight.
 
2012-09-22 08:56:02 PM
Maybe we could cut back on HFCS... oh wait, we're not the ones putting it in all our food products!!!
 
2012-09-22 09:44:17 PM
I drink sugar laden sodas every day.

I eat lots of carbohydrates, and foods high in fat and salt.

/Low blood pressure
//145 pounds
///Starting to see a bit of gut fat these days at the age of 27 years. Might have to start *Gasp* exercising.
////My sedentary lifestyle may kill me from pulled and torn muscles and ligaments, but not obesity.
 
2012-09-22 09:54:14 PM

metal_gear: Maybe we could cut back on HFCS... oh wait, we're not the ones putting it in all our food products!!!


Just out of curiosity, I checked the labels on food in my cupboard. Nothing in my cupboard had HFCS on the ingredient list, although at least three items had sugar listed.
 
2012-09-22 11:34:38 PM
At 200 calories a drink I cut out over a 1000 calories a day by quitting Coke. I drink one on Saturdays now and it's always the best tasting Coke I've ever had.

I drink ice water now just like when I was a kid
 
2012-09-22 11:57:22 PM

mr0x: Honey is pure fructose, esp if you get the cheap ones since the Chinese found a way to remove pollen from the honey.


Honey isn't just pure fructose; if the pollen is removed, it's no longer honey, but honey-flavored substance. Just because it's sold as honey doesn't mean that it actually is. For example, Sue Bee trademarked the phrase "Pure Sue Bee Honey" so they could put "100% Pure Sue Bee Honey" on the bottle, even though the product isn't 100% real honey. I'm not saying that you should gorge yourself on honey, mind you, but then again, you can't on real honey, with the pollen in it. Just try it for yourself - find some local, unpasteurized honey and see how many consecutive spoonfuls you can down. It won't be very many. Try the same experiment with "pure sue bee honey", and you'll get a lot more down. It's like the difference between eating banana pudding and raw bananas. If you can eat 3 whole raw bananas, even if you're really hungry, you're abnormal. But you can probably put away a ton of pudding.
 
2012-09-23 05:58:04 AM

Fark Me To Tears: Go look up the potential side effects of Nutrasweet (aspartame) and read down the entire list. I can tell you first hand that some of the more frightening symptoms do actually occur.


Go look up the potential side effects of literally anything ever studied scientifically -- as opposed to the foods we blindly assume are safe for no reason other that they were popular at the time we started making rules -- and you'll see an equally long list of side effects with similar rates of occurrence. I'm not saying there can't be problems with a particular substance, or that certain people won't suffer unusually bad effects, but being "natural" doesn't make things safe and it's absurd to compared a list of carefully catalogued reactions from substance A to layman's wisdom about the safety of substance B.

/ It's also worthwhile to compare the risk of adverse reaction from the common intake levels of aspartame to the risks associated with other everyday activities, but that would require actual math and not just a belief that chemistry is evil
 
2012-09-23 06:28:25 AM

untaken_name: It's like the difference between eating banana pudding and raw bananas. If you can eat 3 whole raw bananas, even if you're really hungry, you're abnormal. But you can probably put away a ton of pudding.


Ignoring the general "you can eat more pudding than bananas" claim, for which you provide no evidence or reasoning, banana pudding is not bananas with some tiny component removed. If you're thinking instant pudding it's typically cornstarch and milk plus a small amount of some flavoring agent, like a banana. If you're thinking custard it's mostly eggs and milk plus a small amount of some flavoring agent, like a banana. So even accepting the claimed difference in acceptable portion sizes you claim I don't understand the comparison to honey.

Beyond that, the "pollen-filtered honey isn't real honey" is at least 50% a marketing ploy by honey producers. There are plenty of practical reasons you don't want to eat illegally-imported foodstuffs, and pollen-free honey posses a higher risk than average of being such a thing, so you might want to avoid it on those grounds. But I seriously doubt that pollen is a protectant against the supposed dangers of fructose, and further doubt that re-adding pollen to pollen-filtered honey would keep you from eating as much as you would of the pollen-filtered variety. If you'd like to claim otherwise you'll at least need to explain your reasoning, because such a claim certainly doesn't apply to things like adding similar amounts of dirt or salt or the like to other foods (which are frequently contaminated with organic material in similar proportions to the pollen content of raw honey).

You move on to comment on pasteurization without describing how you think that changes things, but I'd guess one of the reasons you can't choke down a lot of "raw" honey is because it's fully of wax which is generally unappetizing. Wax is present to some degree or another in all honey unless you go through a lot of effort to remove it; the big chunks are easy enough to scoop out but the processing necessary to remove honey from the combs necessarily integrates non-trivial amounts of wax into the honey, and most raw honey producers do little to remove this wax. Raw producers also do nothing to remove this bits of bee that naturally occur in honey; those are at least digestible (unlike wax) -- I suppose telling people that raw honey has more dead bee bits in it would probably make them eat less of it. Is that what you were getting at?
 
2012-09-23 10:24:13 AM

Gwyrddu: MaudlinMutantMollusk: I like how they just refer to HFCS as 'sugar' now

Being as HFCS is a mixture of sucrose and glucose, both of which are sugar, I'm not seeing what is deceptive about it. It's not the same thing as table sugar, but both table sugar and HFCS both lie in the category of sugar.


Med student here

Yes, they are both sugar. But the prob with the ads is that they're saying you're body doesn't know the difference when it certainly does.

Yes glucose is the same, but fructose bypasses a key regulatory step in glycolysis which basically is the beginning of the process in which we process sugar and store excess sugar as fat. So normally with glucose, which yes it also contains, too much end products shut this shiat down. With fructose, that doesn't happen and fat storage is aloud to continue uninhibited.

In addition, sucrose which is table sugar, needs to be broken down first into glucose and fructose, which slows this process.

So again, you end up with glucose and fructose, but in even proportions in a slower process in which half of the substrate (glucose) provides feedback inhibition to the process of storing fat as I mentioned above. HFCS has much more fructose than glucose. Herein lies the prob.

Haphazard explanation, sorry
 
2012-09-23 10:27:54 AM

untaken_name: If you can eat 3 whole raw bananas, even if you're really hungry, you're abnormal. But you can probably put away a ton of pudding.


By "whole raw bananas" you still mean throwing away the skin, right?

I ate five once. Mom yelled at me for eating most of the bananas.

/the green ones are the best because they're not as mushy
 
2012-09-24 01:19:32 AM

Gwyrddu: metal_gear: Maybe we could cut back on HFCS... oh wait, we're not the ones putting it in all our food products!!!

Just out of curiosity, I checked the labels on food in my cupboard. Nothing in my cupboard had HFCS on the ingredient list, although at least three items had sugar listed.


... and did you put it in there?
 
2012-09-24 10:08:40 AM

untaken_name: mr0x: Honey is pure fructose, esp if you get the cheap ones since the Chinese found a way to remove pollen from the honey.

Honey isn't just pure fructose; if the pollen is removed, it's no longer honey, but honey-flavored substance. Just because it's sold as honey doesn't mean that it actually is. For example, Sue Bee trademarked the phrase "Pure Sue Bee Honey" so they could put "100% Pure Sue Bee Honey" on the bottle, even though the product isn't 100% real honey. I'm not saying that you should gorge yourself on honey, mind you, but then again, you can't on real honey, with the pollen in it. Just try it for yourself - find some local, unpasteurized honey and see how many consecutive spoonfuls you can down. It won't be very many. Try the same experiment with "pure sue bee honey", and you'll get a lot more down. It's like the difference between eating banana pudding and raw bananas. If you can eat 3 whole raw bananas, even if you're really hungry, you're abnormal. But you can probably put away a ton of pudding.


If you don't eat your mean, you can't have any pudding.

\How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
 
2012-09-24 10:10:03 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: gittlebass: realized this 6 years ago, cut out alcohol and soda's, dropped 200lbs and kept it off

am i the only one that GAINED 40 lbs as a result of QUITTING SODA.


Perhaps you should not have replaced that soda with lard milkshakes...
 
2012-09-25 01:18:39 PM

CWeinerWV: Med student here

Yes, they are both sugar. But the prob with the ads is that they're saying you're body doesn't know the difference when it certainly does.

Yes glucose is the same, but fructose bypasses a key regulatory step in glycolysis which basically is the beginning of the process in which we process sugar and store excess sugar as fat. So normally with glucose, which yes it also contains, too much end products shut this shiat down. With fructose, that doesn't happen and fat storage is aloud to continue uninhibited.

In addition, sucrose which is table sugar, needs to be broken down first into glucose and fructose, which slows this process.

So again, you end up with glucose and fructose, but in even proportions in a slower process in which half of the substrate (glucose) provides feedback inhibition to the process of storing fat as I mentioned above. HFCS has much more fructose than glucose. Herein lies the prob.

Haphazard explanation, sorry



I have been told that sucrase that breaks sucrose into glucose and fructose quickly enough that eating table sugar or the equivalent glucose and fructose mixture has the same reaction to the body. Researchers say HFCS is evil because it is 10 times cheaper than sugar and so food companies can put more of it on everything not because of the fructose/glucose reaction compared to sugar.

HFCS also has HFCS 42 that is used in beverages that is 42% fructose and 53% glucose. They used the term fructose in HFCS probably because fructose was considered a good sugar by the medical community a few years ago - word comes from fruits, does not cause insulin reaction and is sweeter at same concentrations.
 
Displayed 21 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report