The Evils of Sugary Drinks - Soda and Fruit Juice

AnninStPaul

Some actual data supporting the conclusion that drinking soda is bad for you -- just in case any of us need the ammunition!!


A Soda a Day Raises Coronary Heart Disease Risk by 20%
Lisa Nainggolan
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/760100

March 12, 2012 (Boston, Massachusetts) — Sugary drinks are associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) as well as some adverse changes in lipids, inflammatory factors, and leptin, according to a new analysis of men participating in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, reported by Dr Lawrence de Koning (Children's Hospital Boston, MA) and colleagues online March 12, 2012 in Circulation [1].

"Even a moderate amount of sugary beverage consumption — we are talking about one can of soda every day — is associated with a significant 20% increased risk of heart disease even after adjusting for a wide range of cardiovascular risk factors," senior author Dr Frank B Hu (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA) told heartwire . "The increased risk is quite substantial, and I think has important public-health implications given the widespread consumption of soda, not only in the US but also increasing very rapidly in developing countries."

The researchers did not find an increased risk of CHD with artificially sweetened beverages in this analysis, however. "Diet soda has been shown to be associated with weight gain and metabolic diseases in previous studies, even though this hasn't been substantiated in our study," says Hu. "The problem with diet soda is its high-intensity sweet taste, which may condition people's taste. It's still an open question whether diet soda is an optimal alternative to regular soda; we need more data on this. "

Hu says water is the best thing to drink, or coffee or tea. Fruit juice is "not a very good alternative, because of the high amount of sugar," he adds, although if diluted with water, "it's much better than a can of soda," he notes.

And Hu says although the current results apply only to men, prior data from his group in women in the Nurses' Health Study [from 2009] were comparable, "which really boosts the credibility of the findings."

Inflammation could be a pathway for impact of soda upon CHD risk

Hu and colleagues explain that while much research has shown a link between the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and type 2 diabetes, few studies have looked at the association of these drinks with CHD.

Hence, they analyzed the associations of cumulatively averaged sugar-sweetened (eg, sodas) and artificially sweetened (eg, diet sodas) beverage intake with incident fatal and nonfatal CHD (MI) in 42 883 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up study. Beginning in 1986 and every two years until December 2008, participants answered questionnaires about diet and other health habits. A blood sample was provided midway through the study.

There were 3683 CHD cases over 22 years of follow-up. Those in the top quartile of sugar-sweetened-beverage intake had a 20% higher relative risk of CHD than those in the bottom quartile (RR 1.20; p for trend < 0.001) after adjustment for age, smoking, physical activity, alcohol, multivitamins, family history, diet quality, energy intake, body-mass index, preenrollment weight change, and dieting.

Adjustment for self-reported high cholesterol, high triglycerides, high blood pressure, and diagnosed type 2 diabetes only slightly attenuated these associations, which suggests that drinking soda "may impact on CHD risk above and beyond traditional risk factors," say the researchers.

Consumption of artificially sweetened drinks was not significantly associated with CHD (multivariate RR 1.02; p for trend=0.28).

Intake of sugar-sweetened drinks, but not artificially sweetened ones, was also significantly associated with increased triglycerides and several circulating inflammatory factors — including C-reactive protein, interleukin 6 (IL-6), and tumor-necrosis-factor receptor 1 (TNFr1) — as well as decreased HDL cholesterol, lipoprotein (a) (Lp[a]), and leptin (p < 0.02).

"Inflammation is a key factor in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease and cardiometabolic disease and could represent an additional pathway by which sugar-sweetened beverages influence risk," say Hu et al.

Cutting consumption of soda is one of easiest behaviors to change

Hu says that one of the major constituents of soda, high-fructose corn syrup, is subsidized in the US, making such drinks "ridiculously cheap" and helping explain why consumption is so high, particularly in lower socioeconomic groups.

"Doctors should set an example for their patients first," he stresses. "Then, for people who already have heart disease or who are at high risk, physicians should be advising them to cut back on sugary beverages; it's almost a no-brainer, like recommending that they stop smoking and do more exercise. The consumption of sugary beverages is a relatively easy behavior to change."

And although this particular study included mostly white subjects and there are few data on the risk of cardiovascular disease associated with the consumption of soda in people of other ethnicities, there are data on its effect on type 2 diabetes in these groups, he says.

"It has been shown for minority groups — such as African Americans and Asians — that they are more susceptible to the detrimental effects" of sugary drinks on diabetes incidence, he notes.

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

kateroot

Soda kills, fruit juice kills, red meat kills, carbs kill.. Heck, even the sun kills. I appreciate your post, I really do, but since everything I do, eat, or drink, seems to be deadly these days.. I'll just stick to everything in moderation.

Silverkittycat

Same people, same agenda, for years..

August 25, 2004


Pop Goes The Bias

It’d be hard to miss the blaring headlines that trumpet the latest anti-soda scare study — this time supposedly linking increased consumption with type 2 diabetes. Once again, this is a case of biased researchers pushing frenzy over facts. As we pointed out in June (when the results were discussed before publication), five of the study’s seven coauthors are genuine obesity alarmists, and some have close ties to the self-described “food police” at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). One of those coauthors and food-cop friends is Walter Willett, who’s using this questionable study to advocate a truly radical agenda.

Here’s what Willett is telling the press about soda: “The message is: Anyone who cares about their health or the health of their family would not consume these beverages.” That’s just plain nuts. As we explained in the Houston Chronicle today:

This is fizzy science to promote an anti-soda agenda that tries to scare Americans without the data to back it up … It’s the typical hysterical rhetoric, without solid evidence, that indicates a biased agenda by nutritional Puritans.

While the study’s authors are spinning the media like tops in an effort to pump up fear of soft drinks, a key finding was buried in the article’s data tables: For non-obese women (those who are “normal” weight and “overweight”), there was no statistically significant relationship between soda consumption and type 2 diabetes. In other words, the study’s own data shows that soda consumption has nothing to do with diabetes in the vast majority of women. And even in obese women, the authors concede that their observations about type 2 diabetes may “reflect dietary and lifestyle changes accompanying changes in soft drink consumption” — rather than soda consumption itself.

But no matter. Willett and company boast an extensive history of anti-soda activism, and they don’t seem interested in pointing out the gaps in their own data. As far back as 1998 Willett signed a CSPI letter condemning sugar consumption, and he played a starring role in one of CSPI’s recent press conferences. Along with CSPI, he endorsed a petition from Ralph Nader’s Commercial Alert in support of global restrictions on food marketing. (To learn about potential biases of the other coauthors, click here.)

Michigan State University professor Jon Robison harshly condemned the soda-bashing study for adding to “the feeding frenzy that drives our nation’s love affair with epidemiological risk factorology.” He writes today:

This article is a textbook case study in the misuse of epidemiological research for the development of health recommendations for the public. The article is strewn with misleading and sometimes inaccurate statements and enough statistical hocus pocus to make all but the most adept junk-science sleuth dizzy.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/2004/08/2629-pop-goes-the-bias/

Silverkittycat

I'm with you, kateroot.

Powdered sugar: the new blow?

BY J. JUSTIN WILSON
SPECIAL TO THE LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Posted: Mar. 8, 2012 | 2:03 a.m.

As a nation, we've long had a fixation with "good" and "bad" foods. Butter was bad, eggs were bad, acai was good, fat was bad, carbs were bad. Salt has been called a "silent killer." Now, according to public health activists, Pixy Stix are basically flavored cocaine.

What have they been smoking?

Writing in the British journal Nature, three researchers with the University of California, San Francisco now claim that sugar is "toxic" like alcohol or tobacco. Therefore, we need a strict government regime to impose sugar control -- including age restrictions on soda, "sugar-free" zones around schools and candy taxation.

The researchers caution that they're not accusing natural sugar found in fruit of being bad -- they're just claiming eating everything from apple cobbler to cotton candy is like smoking cigarettes.

Curiously, new research in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that Americans are eating 3.5 percent fewer calories today than they were in 2000 and have cut their sugar intake by six teaspoons per day. That's a voluntary change -- which blows apart the notion of sugar's "addictiveness."

Fundamentally, the sugar-is-booze argument reflects the further cheapening of dietary information.

The graveyard of food recommendations is littered with bogus claims that once seemed reasonable. Remember when eggs were cholesterol bombs? Now they're a nutrient-packed health food. Remember when butter was marginalized? People ate more margarine, which has trans fats.

We're always looking for that one "superfood" or one simple rule to build our diets around. There actually is one simple rule, but it's not about a specific food or ingredient. It's about balancing calories.

If the number of calories you consume from food and drink exceed the number of calories you burn off, you will gain weight. Want to lose weight? Burn off more than you take in.

Recent research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that the obesity "epidemic" seems to have leveled off the past few years. It's not necessarily easy to lose weight, but people can do it.

On the other hand, we have people who compare candy to vodka. It's great for getting your name in the news. But it does the public no good.

Consider also the case of salt. For years, the conventional wisdom has been that we're eating too much salt and that it contributes to the risk of heart disease. Recently, though, the hyperbole has reached a new level.

"Salt is the single most dangerous ingredient in the food supply," warns the often hysterical Center for Science in the Public Interest. Meanwhile, CDC chief Thomas Frieden claims that "if you just eat the food that's in front of you, you will end up with high blood pressure."

Looking at recent research, though, should make us wonder if our blood pressure isn't affected more by these doomsday prophecies than salt.

A review of 167 studies published last fall in the American Journal of Hypertension found that sodium reduction was associated with significant increases in both cholesterol and blood triglycerides (fat) -- both risk factors for cardiovascular disease. And a study in the same journal released in the summer used data from 6,500 patients and found that even a 50 percent salt reduction was not associated with a significant decrease in the risk of dying or cardiovascular disease.

The American Dietetic Association rejects the idea of good and bad foods, noting that "the total diet or overall pattern of food eaten is the most important focus of a healthful eating style." That's what responsible professional advocates should focus on -- eating in moderation.

J. Justin Wilson is the senior research analyst at the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies and consumers to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.

Sl1ghtly

Ridiculous. It is to some extent forgivable when people adopt extreme positions out of misunderstanding or delusion. It is quite another matter if they mislead others by deliberate falsehood.

sweet_lotus

Thanks, those were a couple of interesting longitudinal studies to come out recently! I plan to read both of them much more closely.

The only weaknesses I see in this study are that not only the diets are self-reported (can't really get around that with these types of studies) but the risk factors will self-reported as well. I'd be interested to know if the sodas were actually associated with cardiovascular events and mortalitiy rather than simply risk factors. (The article doesn't mention that.)

The hypothetical mechanism is kind of fizzy (ha!), though. They propose that regular soda intake increases inflammatory cytokines, but findings weren't similar with diet soda. However, another study recently found that DIET soda was associated with vascular events, but regular soda was off the hook. [Diet Soft Drink Consumption is Associated with an Increased Risk of Vascular Events in the Northern Manhattan Study (Gardner et al., Journal of General Internal Medicine)]

So, not as clear cut as the study authors would like us to think.