Is soda really "evil"?

A list of questionable studies, the most recent of which is 15 years ago...sounds legit.

Just out of curiosity, have you actually read a single one of them? Cause I know I haven't and I wouldn't feel comfortable calling all of those studies questionable simply because they didn't conform with my confirmation bias. Note: I'd say that about a study on either side, but would want to 1) actually look at the study and 2) know who funded it.

You can only read the same study so many times. I've read plenty of them on this subject. It gets old. At some point you have to start ignoring the chicken littles and their panic attacks. That said, I don't drink soda, but I also don't go around telling everyone else that they're going to die from it. I just don't like sweet drinks, with the exception of Sauternes.

Is that what these studies say? That they are going to die from drinking it? Somehow I doubt that is what they say.

Also, aren't you potentially closing yourself off from new information if/when it is published if you think you already know enough based on old studies you've read and formed opinions on?

The listed studies stopped in the late 1990s. Do you have a point?

Yep, just a Monsanto shill, living in a 2 bedroom apartment on a Navy base and driving my 7-year-old car. :laugh:

Seriously, who is holding all my checks from big sugar and big wheat??? Its like Monsanto is never going to pay up. Sigh, guess I'll just have to live without them and be satisfied with my bangin' body and deprivation-free lifestyle.

and don't forget your humility.

who said I was humble? I love the way I look.

Apparently. Well, good for you then. Personally, I think that 4th picture is pretty interesting.

I think personal attacks on others are against the forum rules.

They are! Which is only one of the reasons why I don't do it.

@ beach. I first pointed out to you that the studies probably don't tell people they will die if they drink it and asked if that was what you were implying. Then I asked, not referring to any study in particular, if your comment that 'I've read plenty of them' and 'you can only read so many', would close you off to new studies.

Not sure how your response that my 'argument' (which I'm not trying to enter either an argument or debate wit you) was not cogent. It seems more like a non response to what I said. But that is ok. You don't have to respond to it either.

Well I'm not Beach, but I do agree with him. After so many of these threads, unless a study is new I'm not particularly interested. What I do personally is keep up with Science Based Medicine, because they review a lot of newer studies and they often point out flaws that I wouldn't know were there.

For those of us who aren't scientists but who still want to do our research, it helps to have sources who are knowledgeable in study design and/or medicine.

I'm not a regular soda drinker, but I do enjoy one on occasion. I say having one once a week or as a "treat" is perfectly fine. But I'd go for the full sugar version and stay away from diet drinks that contain artificial sweetener.

As for the OP:

It's a complex and personal topic. My questions to you would likely be this:

Will drinking an occasional soda make you crave more soda, make it harder to maintain your dietary goals?
If no, then do you have extra calories available in your day?
If yes, do you want the soda badly enough to exchange it for the calories you could otherwise have taken in by more satiating choices?

If yes, then go for it. If you answered the opposite to the above questions, maybe you consider staying away.

As for diet soda, I think the link between aspartame and headaches among certain populations is pretty solid. Ditto the link between aspartame and depression issues among those who are already diagnosed with depression. For the average population, though, I wouldn't say it's unhealthy.

@ beach. I first pointed out to you that the studies probably don't tell people they will die if they drink it and asked if that was what you were implying. Then I asked, not referring to any study in particular, if your comment that 'I've read plenty of them' and 'you can only read so many', would close you off to new studies.

Not sure how your response that my 'argument' (which I'm not trying to enter either an argument or debate wit you) was not cogent. It seems more like a non response to what I said. But that is ok. You don't have to respond to it either.

New information from a respected source, and not simply the rehashing of the same old studies on a scare mongering website? Yes. Of course I would read it. You missed my statement, and I quote, "[y]ou can only read the same study so many times." You also missed the obvious hyperbole in my dying statement, but for all of the jumping up and down, you would think that would be the risk. It's not.

This has been a complete detour, which is par for the course, and you really seem to be simply getting involved in these discussions for trolling purposes. If that's not the case, then go read the studies yourself, and contribute rather than pretending to be "not trying to enter either an argument or debate with [me] . . ." or anyone else.

You also missed the obvious hyperbole in my dying statement, but for all of the jumping up and down, you would think that would be the risk. It's not.

I'll bet you money that if you drink diet soda, you'll die. Wanna take the bet? :laugh:

Pretty much 100% chance, right?

@ beach. I first pointed out to you that the studies probably don't tell people they will die if they drink it and asked if that was what you were implying. Then I asked, not referring to any study in particular, if your comment that 'I've read plenty of them' and 'you can only read so many', would close you off to new studies.

Not sure how your response that my 'argument' (which I'm not trying to enter either an argument or debate wit you) was not cogent. It seems more like a non response to what I said. But that is ok. You don't have to respond to it either.

New information from a respected source, and not simply the rehashing of the same old studies on a scare mongering website? Yes. Of course I would read it. You missed my statement, and I quote, "[y]ou can only read the same study so many times." You also missed the obvious hyperbole in my dying statement, but for all of the jumping up and down, you would think that would be the risk. It's not.

This has been a complete detour, which is par for the course, and you really seem to be simply getting involved in these discussions for trolling purposes. If that's not the case, then go read the studies yourself, and contribute rather than pretending to be "not trying to enter either an argument or debate with [me] . . ." or anyone else.

I read what you wrote pretty carefully. And I stand by my response. As far as the accusation, I'm not a troll and I am comfortable with my posts here. If you are not, that is not my issue.

As far as the studies you refer to, I am open-minded enough to look at them. The same request I made to the other poster stands here. If you want to provide them along with who funded them, I would be interested.

lol

There is this site, www.pubmed.org. If you're serious about reading health studies, start there. Go educate yourself. I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty, or attempt to, with someone who misreads the sentence, "[y]ou can only read the same study so many times" and continues to argue with me about it. Best of luck.

Wow. Ok. I will take that as a 'no, I won't show you or anyone else here the study to back up what I'm saying'. Nice. Well, if you change your mind...

In the interim, I guess the readers here can refer to the studies that were posted.

Exactly which of the several hundred thousand studies on aspartame would you like to read? He linked you to pubmed, which is the National Institutes of Health's online repository of peer reviewed studies. You can go there and read every study you want, and it shows who funded them, who performed them, and even shows any potential conflicts between the study topic and scientists involved in the study.

I suppose actual research is too difficult? Better to just insist on being spoonfed, and crying foul when someone gives you the key to all the information you seek...

It is difficult to use pubmed to find the desirable articles to support a case. Sometimes because the key words do not align (typing in 'soda' often pulled up articles by a man named Soda, haha) and two, because a lot of articles linked to pubmed are not free for public viewing.

Here's one, though, that I found interesting.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3738277/
Papandreou D, Andreou E, Heraclides A, Rousso I (2013). Is beverage intake related to overweight and obesity in school children? Hippokratia 17(1): 42-46.


This study looked at the consumption of fruit juice without sugar added, fruit juice with sugar added, soft drinks and milk (whole, half-and-half, 2%, 1%, skim) in their correlations to obesity in children.

Basically it states that sugary drinks (fruit juice with sugar added, soft drinks, etc.) were found in statistically significant higher consumption of obese children than normal and overweight children. Children consuming sugary drinks were found to be over 2.5 times more likely to develop obesity. They also pointed out that these sugary drinks may trigger genetic predispositions to fat development.

Other drinks (100% fruit juice with no sugar added and milk) were not statistically significant between normal, overweight, or obese children. They concluded these drinks are not affecting the development of obesity.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518794/

Qibin Q, Chu AY, Kang JH, Jensen MK, Curhan GC, Pasquale LR, Ridker PM, Hunter DJ, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Chasman DI, Hu FB, Qi L (2012). Sugar-sweetened beverages and genetic risk of obesity. N Engl J Med. 367(15): 1387-1396.

This study concluded that higher sugary drinks resulted in higher genetic associations of BMIs across adult men and women individuals. They found that increased sugary drink intake resulted in increased risk of obesity allele frequency (meaning how likely they were, genetically, to develop diabetes).

For their sugar-sweetened drinks, they included caffeinated colas, caffeine-free colas, carbonated non-cola soft drinks, and noncarbonated sugar-sweetened drinks (lemonade, fruit drinks). For artificially-sweetened drinks, they included caffeinated, caffeine-free, and noncarbonated low-calorie drinks.

Interestingly enough, they noted that dietary and exercise changes did not buffer the individuals from this risk allele increase. (So eating better to accommodate drinking a pepsi does not seem to be as effective as you might think.)

According to Table 3 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518794/table/T3/ ) sugar drinks were statistically significant in increasing BMI (in science, we accept any p-value below 0.05 as ‘significant’, while rejecting any number higher than this. As you can see on the right, sugar-drinks have p-values below 0.05 (meaning they are significantly contributing), whereas artificial drinks had p-values above 0.05 (meaning they were not significantly contributing).

They concluded that if a person were to drink these beverages less than once a month, they will have half the risk of someone who drinks one every day. Genetic susceptibility is also something to consider when drinking these drinks, as some people are more prone to react genetically to
sugary beverages than others.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862465/

Malik VS, Popkin BM, Bray GA, Despres JP, Hu FB (2010). Sugar sweetened beverages, obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease risk. Circulation 121(11): 1356-1364.

This study found a positive association between sugary drinks and weight-gain of obese individuals. They also found in a study focusing on black women who consumed at least one sugary drink a day were 83% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than those that only drank one once a month. Although they also noted one study which contradicted this information, stating no significant correlation existed for individuals between sugary drink consumption and type 2 diabetes after a 9 year follow up. But, this study was done on heavier and older participants. Popkin et al.’s conclusion is that, maybe once BMI is higher, sugary drinks do not have as strong of an effect on the consumer.

MetSyn was also reported to increase with soft drink (regular and diet soda) consumption; once a day versus once a month increased by 39%. However, Popkin et al. commented that it was more likely the regular contributing most of the change.

They say that as of 2010 the data was limited on sugary drink and heart disease interactions. But, there was some evidence starting to indicate that sugary drinks may also increase the development of hypertension, inflammation, and clinical cardiovascular heart disease.
They add that studies have also pointed at sugary drink intake to weight gain to be a much higher contribution than solid food.

Sugary drinks lead to rapid increases in blood glucose levels as well as insulin production and a higher glycemic load. They can both lead to glucose intolerance and insulin resistance. Fructose can lead to increased blood pressure. Reactive oxygen species (which are really bad; they destroy your cells and proteins and tissues) were significantly increased when fructose and glucose were consumed (according to Ghanim et al. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17384340). Fructose also increases blood uric acid.

Something I found cute was at the end they talked about water intake, and how it’s better and why. It made me chuckle because it should be a ‘no duh’, but the information still made me smile.

They also talked about diet soda and how it is still unknown about (at the release of this study). Artificial sweeteners, they say, do not have calories, but also have little to no nutritional value, and may subject a person to desiring stronger sweets in their appetites. They say it is unknown and highly controversial as of the publication of their study. Further research is needed.

This post is getting long, so I will end it here. But here are some more readings if you are interested.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210834/

Malik VS, Schulze MB, Hu FB (2006). Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 84(2): 274-288.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192470/

Malik VS and Hu FB (2011). Sugar-sweetened beverages and health: where does the evidence stand? Am J Clin Nutr. 94(5): 1161-1162.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3151731/

Mozaffarian D, Hao T, Hu FB (2011). Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. N Engl J Med. 364(25); 2392-2404.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/2/e223.long
Welsh JA, Cogswell ME, Rogers S, Rockett H, Mei Z, Grummer-Strawn LM (2005). Overweight among low-income preschool children associated with the consumption of sweet drinks: Missouri, 1999-2002. PEDIATRICS 155(2): 223-229.

Either tell me it's ok or try to convince me to stop drinking it with facts about how horrible it is. (please tell me it's ok I love soda)

Dear OP:

I stick to my initial post and encourage you to Google the subject. You will need to make up your own mind and I hope you do so armed with facts. If nothing else, listen to your mother…she doesn’t buy this stuff, right?

Dear OP et al: As predicted, portions of this thread have deteriorated…someone wanted references…I gave references …someone else complained that the references were not current. Okay, well, perhaps we should demand more research to determine if tobacco usage still causes cancer…after all, most of that research is pretty old, too. Older, in fact, than the research on aspartame I listed. So, while some of you are throwing the baby out with the bath water, someone else will have to foot the bill for this redundant research.

The facts of how aspartame was approved by the FDA (after two failed attempts) is quite fascinating…for those of you who have open minds, I encourage you to check it out. I won’t include any reference to the facts here, as this goes back decades, ergo probably too old to be relevant, right? (and frankly not germane to the OPs question). And, as to my Monsanto reference, why did they sell their aspartame patent?

To each their own, but I for one will continue to read both sides of any argument when it comes to my health to make an informed decision and it has nothing to do with fear mongering…I just call it being an educated consumer. (Fear mongering? Cheap shot with absolutely no basis in reality). Me thinks some of you dost protest too much…