Drinking Sodas

Options
2

Replies

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,074 Member
    Options
    neanderthin wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I think if you're gonna post (copy) an article from some source, you really need to post a link.

    Like other posts have already pointed out, way more context is needed. Like, 20 ounces a day of...[what exactly] and over what period of time and how to eliminate confounding variables like other foods and other sugars and blah blah blah.

    I mean, any study that tries to link a certain substance like soda to life expectancy or "aging" (however you measure that) is doomed to failure. How were these test subjects followed? Self-reported intake? For how long? No other co-occurring contributing factors like lack of exercise, smoking, being overweight from maybe too much cheese, or red meat? What about other unhealthy behaviors?

    Just on the how-many-sodas point: LOL. I've been tracking my food as diligently as I can (food scale, making 90%-ish of my own meals) for the majority of the last 15 years and I am 100% certain I don't log everything because human. No study is locking people up in a lab for an entire lifetime, counting their sodas, and quantifying their "aging" and that's why I never give credence to things like self-reported food intake. But again, where's the whole study - not just a biased click-bait article?

    Of course most people already know soda isn't something to over-consume.

    Just. No.

    This basically indicates the science behind this study. This would be data retrieved via (FFQ'ers) food frequency questionnaires which is extremely unreliable and is based on people's memory and being truthful which quite a percentage are not and it was only followed up for 4 years, then projected out 25 yrs later.....gotta love epidemiology, truly a guessing game at best. Not only that but the multiple confounders that alway plaque these types of studies have been factored in, yeah no, everything can't be factored in and it's basically just short form for "we made some bull crap up" to feel better about it.

    The second problem is they asked if they had any indication of heart disease as one of the questions on the FFQ as opposed to being tested by coronary calcium scores to actually determine if they did or not and, well, the only way to answer yes would be that a person actually had a heart related event, so the vast majority would more than likely have said no. Unfortunately most people have some degree of calcium buildup in their arteries. In other words most people will have some degree of atherosclerosis, albeit small in most cases but how many would actually have atherosclerosis after 25 years, regardless if they never drank soda in their life, it would be higher, simple logic.
    To conduct their study, researchers at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) examined data from 5,309 U.S. adults between ages 20 and 65 with no history of cardiovascular disease, whose information was compiled as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1999 to 2002.

    Exactly.


    But but....Telomeres, tho. It's one of those immunity buzzwords right now. Put enough topical buzzwords in your article and people will find it on an internet search even though it is a totally nonsensical study and article.

    I really fear for people who can't discern this stuff...but then, meh. Don't care.

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,011 Member
    Options
    cmriverside wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I think if you're gonna post (copy) an article from some source, you really need to post a link.

    Like other posts have already pointed out, way more context is needed. Like, 20 ounces a day of...[what exactly] and over what period of time and how to eliminate confounding variables like other foods and other sugars and blah blah blah.

    I mean, any study that tries to link a certain substance like soda to life expectancy or "aging" (however you measure that) is doomed to failure. How were these test subjects followed? Self-reported intake? For how long? No other co-occurring contributing factors like lack of exercise, smoking, being overweight from maybe too much cheese, or red meat? What about other unhealthy behaviors?

    Just on the how-many-sodas point: LOL. I've been tracking my food as diligently as I can (food scale, making 90%-ish of my own meals) for the majority of the last 15 years and I am 100% certain I don't log everything because human. No study is locking people up in a lab for an entire lifetime, counting their sodas, and quantifying their "aging" and that's why I never give credence to things like self-reported food intake. But again, where's the whole study - not just a biased click-bait article?

    Of course most people already know soda isn't something to over-consume.

    Just. No.

    This basically indicates the science behind this study. This would be data retrieved via (FFQ'ers) food frequency questionnaires which is extremely unreliable and is based on people's memory and being truthful which quite a percentage are not and it was only followed up for 4 years, then projected out 25 yrs later.....gotta love epidemiology, truly a guessing game at best. Not only that but the multiple confounders that alway plaque these types of studies have been factored in, yeah no, everything can't be factored in and it's basically just short form for "we made some bull crap up" to feel better about it.

    The second problem is they asked if they had any indication of heart disease as one of the questions on the FFQ as opposed to being tested by coronary calcium scores to actually determine if they did or not and, well, the only way to answer yes would be that a person actually had a heart related event, so the vast majority would more than likely have said no. Unfortunately most people have some degree of calcium buildup in their arteries. In other words most people will have some degree of atherosclerosis, albeit small in most cases but how many would actually have atherosclerosis after 25 years, regardless if they never drank soda in their life, it would be higher, simple logic.
    To conduct their study, researchers at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) examined data from 5,309 U.S. adults between ages 20 and 65 with no history of cardiovascular disease, whose information was compiled as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1999 to 2002.

    Exactly.


    But but....Telomeres, tho. It's one of those immunity buzzwords right now. Put enough topical buzzwords in your article and people will find it on an internet search even though it is a totally nonsensical study and article.

    I really fear for people who can't discern this stuff...but then, meh. Don't care.

    Telomeres is what probably funded the study and paid for their vacation to Lake Como :D because sugars been studied ad nauseam. Cheers
  • glassyo
    glassyo Posts: 7,639 Member
    Options
    neanderthin wrote: »
    glassyo wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    PaulDalen wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Caveat: This study presumes a standard serving of soda is 20 ounces, which is factually incorrect. A standard serving is 8 ounces, so in order to make this work they changed the parameters to comply with their assertion. Context and dosage.

    LOL. 20 oz seems on the low side for most people drinking soda. Go to any convenience store, and a 'small' is 22 oz. Large is 44 oz. No one is drinking 8 oz of soda.

    There is simply no safe amount of refined sugar. There is nothing you can do that will have a more direct and quicker improvement on your body that stopping all sugar intake. It has zero nutritional value, and will absolutely f' up your blood sugar levels. I quit sugar cold turkey 3 months ago. My A1C has dropped from 8.8 to 5.8. I am off all diabetes, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure meds. I'm down 54 pounds since Thanksgiving.

    I’m glad you are enjoying such positive results. However, how can you attribute your change in A1C to eliminating refined sugar versus simply losing weight?

    My question exactly considering, if sugar causes diabetes, I'd be typing from a diabetic coma right now. :)

    Don't think they said sugar causes diabetes, if were trying to be critical of exact language.

    Ok, how's "My question exactly considering, if eliminating sugar makes the diabetes better, I'd be typing from a diabetic coma right now."? Better?

    Because in my NE=1 experience, I was pre-diabetic but lost weight without giving up my beloved sugar, and my numbers went down.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,074 Member
    edited February 2023
    Options
    neanderthin wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I think if you're gonna post (copy) an article from some source, you really need to post a link.

    Like other posts have already pointed out, way more context is needed. Like, 20 ounces a day of...[what exactly] and over what period of time and how to eliminate confounding variables like other foods and other sugars and blah blah blah.

    I mean, any study that tries to link a certain substance like soda to life expectancy or "aging" (however you measure that) is doomed to failure. How were these test subjects followed? Self-reported intake? For how long? No other co-occurring contributing factors like lack of exercise, smoking, being overweight from maybe too much cheese, or red meat? What about other unhealthy behaviors?

    Just on the how-many-sodas point: LOL. I've been tracking my food as diligently as I can (food scale, making 90%-ish of my own meals) for the majority of the last 15 years and I am 100% certain I don't log everything because human. No study is locking people up in a lab for an entire lifetime, counting their sodas, and quantifying their "aging" and that's why I never give credence to things like self-reported food intake. But again, where's the whole study - not just a biased click-bait article?

    Of course most people already know soda isn't something to over-consume.

    Just. No.

    This basically indicates the science behind this study. This would be data retrieved via (FFQ'ers) food frequency questionnaires which is extremely unreliable and is based on people's memory and being truthful which quite a percentage are not and it was only followed up for 4 years, then projected out 25 yrs later.....gotta love epidemiology, truly a guessing game at best. Not only that but the multiple confounders that alway plaque these types of studies have been factored in, yeah no, everything can't be factored in and it's basically just short form for "we made some bull crap up" to feel better about it.

    The second problem is they asked if they had any indication of heart disease as one of the questions on the FFQ as opposed to being tested by coronary calcium scores to actually determine if they did or not and, well, the only way to answer yes would be that a person actually had a heart related event, so the vast majority would more than likely have said no. Unfortunately most people have some degree of calcium buildup in their arteries. In other words most people will have some degree of atherosclerosis, albeit small in most cases but how many would actually have atherosclerosis after 25 years, regardless if they never drank soda in their life, it would be higher, simple logic.
    To conduct their study, researchers at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) examined data from 5,309 U.S. adults between ages 20 and 65 with no history of cardiovascular disease, whose information was compiled as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1999 to 2002.

    Exactly.


    But but....Telomeres, tho. It's one of those immunity buzzwords right now. Put enough topical buzzwords in your article and people will find it on an internet search even though it is a totally nonsensical study and article.

    I really fear for people who can't discern this stuff...but then, meh. Don't care.

    Telomeres is what probably funded the study and paid for their vacation to Lake Como :D because sugars been studied ad nauseam. Cheers

    Don't telomeres shorten for everyone as they get older? So the people are older and they have shorter telomeres than they did in 1999.

    Shocking! Stop The Press!!

    Okay, I'll stop. :lol:
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,011 Member
    Options
    glassyo wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    glassyo wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    PaulDalen wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Caveat: This study presumes a standard serving of soda is 20 ounces, which is factually incorrect. A standard serving is 8 ounces, so in order to make this work they changed the parameters to comply with their assertion. Context and dosage.

    LOL. 20 oz seems on the low side for most people drinking soda. Go to any convenience store, and a 'small' is 22 oz. Large is 44 oz. No one is drinking 8 oz of soda.

    There is simply no safe amount of refined sugar. There is nothing you can do that will have a more direct and quicker improvement on your body that stopping all sugar intake. It has zero nutritional value, and will absolutely f' up your blood sugar levels. I quit sugar cold turkey 3 months ago. My A1C has dropped from 8.8 to 5.8. I am off all diabetes, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure meds. I'm down 54 pounds since Thanksgiving.

    I’m glad you are enjoying such positive results. However, how can you attribute your change in A1C to eliminating refined sugar versus simply losing weight?

    My question exactly considering, if sugar causes diabetes, I'd be typing from a diabetic coma right now. :)

    Don't think they said sugar causes diabetes, if were trying to be critical of exact language.

    Ok, how's "My question exactly considering, if eliminating sugar makes the diabetes better, I'd be typing from a diabetic coma right now."? Better?

    Because in my NE=1 experience, I was pre-diabetic but lost weight without giving up my beloved sugar, and my numbers went down.

    That's better. There's degrees of better. Both losing weight and reducing or eliminating sugar independently have an inverse relationship with insulin sensitivity and ultimately A1C making the risk factors for diabetes better. cheers.
  • BainD7
    BainD7 Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    Okay! Go ahead and drink coke. I really don't care if you do or don't. If you don't like my post and you think it is false then drink all the coke you like. I know for a fact that sodas raise your glucose levels. I know for a fact it is not good for you to drink if you have a fatty liver like me. So risk your health and others by claiming it doesn't hurt you. It sounds like all of you got it figured out. Sorry for the post if it offended anyone. lol
  • glassyo
    glassyo Posts: 7,639 Member
    Options
    raymer3 wrote: »
    Okay! Go ahead and drink coke. I really don't care if you do or don't. If you don't like my post and you think it is false then drink all the coke you like. I know for a fact that sodas raise your glucose levels. I know for a fact it is not good for you to drink if you have a fatty liver like me. So risk your health and others by claiming it doesn't hurt you. It sounds like all of you got it figured out. Sorry for the post if it offended anyone. lol

    Thank god for diet soda. :)
  • glassyo
    glassyo Posts: 7,639 Member
    edited February 2023
    Options
    LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »
    raymer3 wrote: »
    Okay! Go ahead and drink coke. I really don't care if you do or don't. If you don't like my post and you think it is false then drink all the coke you like. I know for a fact that sodas raise your glucose levels. I know for a fact it is not good for you to drink if you have a fatty liver like me. So risk your health and others by claiming it doesn't hurt you. It sounds like all of you got it figured out. Sorry for the post if it offended anyone. lol

    Meowwww! You posted a giant article about the dangers of sugar on an internet board that espouses moderation and dietary choices focused primarily on calorie consumption. You're surprised you got responses?

    I'm sure you meant to enlighten the masses, but you really can't post something on the internet and think people are not going to react. Next person might say we shouldn't eat cookies ever or eat meat or eat flour. Same thing would happen.

    *kitten* you, you *kitten* *kitten*! What is this *kitten*? *kitten*!

    :)

    (I typed in all those kittens.)

    (No, I didn't.)

    (I obviously like my cookies.)

    Edited to add: Previewing the post does NOT censor words.
  • BainD7
    BainD7 Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    Great comments. "I like to buy the world a coke and keep it company." Peace out.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,502 Member
    Options
    glassyo wrote: »
    LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »
    raymer3 wrote: »
    Okay! Go ahead and drink coke. I really don't care if you do or don't. If you don't like my post and you think it is false then drink all the coke you like. I know for a fact that sodas raise your glucose levels. I know for a fact it is not good for you to drink if you have a fatty liver like me. So risk your health and others by claiming it doesn't hurt you. It sounds like all of you got it figured out. Sorry for the post if it offended anyone. lol

    Meowwww! You posted a giant article about the dangers of sugar on an internet board that espouses moderation and dietary choices focused primarily on calorie consumption. You're surprised you got responses?

    I'm sure you meant to enlighten the masses, but you really can't post something on the internet and think people are not going to react. Next person might say we shouldn't eat cookies ever or eat meat or eat flour. Same thing would happen.

    *kitten* you, you *kitten* *kitten*! What is this *kitten*? *kitten*!

    :)

    (I typed in all those kittens.)

    (No, I didn't.)

    (I obviously like my cookies.)

    Edited to add: Previewing the post does NOT censor words.

    Well, thank you. I might go into the kitchen now and get the bloody cookies I bought today. Yeah. *kitten*.
  • LiveOnceBeHappy
    LiveOnceBeHappy Posts: 432 Member
    Options
    glassyo wrote: »
    LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »
    raymer3 wrote: »
    Okay! Go ahead and drink coke. I really don't care if you do or don't. If you don't like my post and you think it is false then drink all the coke you like. I know for a fact that sodas raise your glucose levels. I know for a fact it is not good for you to drink if you have a fatty liver like me. So risk your health and others by claiming it doesn't hurt you. It sounds like all of you got it figured out. Sorry for the post if it offended anyone. lol

    Meowwww! You posted a giant article about the dangers of sugar on an internet board that espouses moderation and dietary choices focused primarily on calorie consumption. You're surprised you got responses?

    I'm sure you meant to enlighten the masses, but you really can't post something on the internet and think people are not going to react. Next person might say we shouldn't eat cookies ever or eat meat or eat flour. Same thing would happen.

    *kitten* you, you *kitten* *kitten*! What is this *kitten*? *kitten*!

    :)

    (I typed in all those kittens.)

    (No, I didn't.)

    (I obviously like my cookies.)

    Edited to add: Previewing the post does NOT censor words.

    Man, I really wish we had a Cracking Up / LMAO reaction choice!
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,064 Member
    Options
    PaulDalen wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Caveat: This study presumes a standard serving of soda is 20 ounces, which is factually incorrect. A standard serving is 8 ounces, so in order to make this work they changed the parameters to comply with their assertion. Context and dosage.


    There is simply no safe amount of refined sugar. There is nothing you can do that will have a more direct and quicker improvement on your body that stopping all sugar intake. It has zero nutritional value, and will absolutely f' up your blood sugar levels. I quit sugar cold turkey 3 months ago. My A1C has dropped from 8.8 to 5.8. I am off all diabetes, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure meds. I'm down 54 pounds since Thanksgiving.

    that post really doesnt make sense.

    In fact refined sugar In MODERATION, IN CONTEXT OF OVERALL APPROPRIATE CALORIE AND NUTRITION DIET is fine for almost everyone
    and if they are not diabetic it wont mess up their blood sugar levels, since they have a functioning insulin producing pancreas

    Key words - moderation and context.

    obviously if you are diabetic the amount you should consume is less than the general population - but it still isnt zero - so, 'no amount is safe' is still wrong.

    and obviously for diabetics, never having any refined sugar could be fatal - how do you think hypo's are treated?
    with quick acting sugar. I guess one could use non refined source like honey straight from the hive - but most people's go-to is jelly babies or sugar drink - you know, things more easily accessible for more people in in more real life situations

  • BainD7
    BainD7 Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    o:) Kitten lol I love this. :D
  • BainD7
    BainD7 Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    This is *kitten* hilarious....

Categories