Drinking Sodas
BainD7
Posts: 12 Member
"For a daily consumption of the current standard 20-ounce serving size for sugar-sweetened sodas, this corresponds to 4.6 additional years of aging," the study found, an amount of telomere shortening similar to that associated with smoking cigarettes. Nov 7, #1 Worst Drink That Ages You Faster, Says Science
This popular beverage could be speeding up the aging process, researchers say. Since time immemorial, people have been trying to find the proverbial fountain of youth. The pursuit for an ageless appearance along with a longer, healthier life remains a major goal for countless people today.
While anti-aging creams and devices, supplements that promise greater longevity, and diets that claim to turn back the clock may help you feel younger, there may also be an easier way to slow down the aging process. Research indicates there's one drink that can age you faster, and cutting it from your diet may help stop your premature aging in its tracks.
When it comes to aging, there's no drink worse than sugar-sweetened soda. Drinking soda on a consistent basis has been known to lead to an increase in the risk of weight gain and certain diseases, and research shows that it can even affect your body on a cellular level. All of these components contribute to unhealthier, more rapid aging.
"Consuming sugar-sweetened beverages on a regular basis can ultimately put you at risk for a variety of diseases like obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and more," says Amy Goodson, MS, RD, CSSD, LD, author of The Sports Nutrition Playbook and member of our Expert Medical Board. "Because our risk for these diseases automatically increases as we age, adding excessive sugar to the aging equation does not help.
Soda can increase your risk for disease. One of the main ways consistent soda consumption can speed up your aging process is by increasing your risk of diseases in which aging is already a risk factor. As Goodson mentioned, this includes things like type 2 diabetes and heart disease.
According to a 2019 report published in Nutrients, sugar-sweetened beverage consumption was associated with type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease, regardless of whether or not a person was also obese. One smaller cohort study done with female teachers in California found that consuming one or more servings of sugar-sweetened beverages per day was associated with cardiovascular disease and stroke risk after a 25-year follow-up.
Soda can increase your risk for disease, but it can also negatively affect your body's cells, too.
Soda can impact your body on a cellular level
According to a 2014 study published in the American Journal of Public Health, sugary drinks can cause premature aging on a cellular level.
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.
What the researchers found was that individuals who drank more sugar-sweetened drinks had shorter telomeres—sections of DNA at the end of chromosomes—within their white blood cells. Shortened telomeres in white blood cells have been linked to reduced longevity and an increased risk of chronic disease.
"Regular consumption of sugar-sweetened sodas might influence disease development, not only by straining the body's metabolic control of sugars but also through accelerated cellular aging of tissues," explained the study's senior author Elissa Epel, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at UCSF, in a statement.
"This is the first demonstration that soda is associated with telomere shortness," added Epel. "This finding held regardless of age, race, income, and education level. Telomere shortening starts long before disease onset." Epel added that, while the study was conducted exclusively on adults, this may hold true for children, too.
While the study's researchers were quick to point out that this finding is an association, not definitive causation, the long-term effects are quite pronounced. "For a daily consumption of the current standard 20-ounce serving size for sugar-sweetened sodas, this corresponds to 4.6 additional years of aging," the study found, an amount of telomere shortening similar to that associated with smoking cigarettes. Soda can mess with your gut, too. A 2021 review published in Current Nutrition Reports found that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, like soda, was associated with changes to gut bacteria and the intestinal microbiota, inflammation, and oxidative stress, all of which are linked to premature aging. That study's authors had a simple recommendation to help mitigate these effects: replace soda with a healthier drink choice whenever you can.
So, the next time you have a craving for something bubbly, maybe consider a seltzer with lemon instead—your body will thank you
Tagged:
1
Replies
-
And 2 bucks will get you a coffee at Tim Hortons, both of which I discount for the sake of my sanity. I'm not saying sugar is good for us, because it's sugar we're talking about here and not soda, so right from the get go, they can't see the forest for the tree's. There's a thing called context and dosage and then we have the weapon of mass confusion, the science of nutritional epidemiology. Yes sugars and soda is not good when it represents a dominant factor in a persons diet, but having a soda periodically isn't going to have any marketable effect on health. And mortality and longevity is only relevant when 2 or more groups of people that are controlled randomly and blinded in every single aspect of life and followed to the very end, which is death and then and only then can anything be claimed to then be a risk factor for mortality or longevity, full stop. Basically this is the same science that says from one day to the next that something is either good for us or bad for us and eggs are a good example and the reason is, nutritional epidemiology can be manipulate/designed by authors to facilitate any outcome they want. Cheers.
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.8 -
I think it’s common knowledge of people that are calorie conscious is that non diet sodas are a big no no.3
-
Does NAME-OF-SODA-ZERO count as a telomere shortening soda or not
What is the effect of 20oz of apple or orange juice
How about 15 hard candies or two 100g milk chocolate bars instead
Inquiring minds want to know
I've yet to encounter the MFPer who logs their full sugar calorie sodas and thinks they represent a ragingly great caloric value for them--one they seek to repeat several times a day every day. I am sure they might exist somewhere. It's just that I've only run into the ones who seem to drink and log an OCCASIONAL non-sugar-free soda. Cause... numbers: they add up!
4 -
Does NAME-OF-SODA-ZERO count as a telomere shortening soda or not
What is the effect of 20oz of apple or orange juice
How about 15 hard candies or two 100g milk chocolate bars instead
Inquiring minds want to know
I've yet to encounter the MFPer who logs their full sugar calorie sodas and thinks they represent a ragingly great caloric value for them--one they seek to repeat several times a day every day. I am sure they might exist somewhere. It's just that I've only run into the ones who seem to drink and log an OCCASIONAL non-sugar-free soda. Cause... numbers: they add up!
Sure, but your average American gorges themselves day after day on full sugar soda. This is shown by sales.0 -
The average American **MFP** user?
It's only us chickens in the forum here! 🤷♂️
Log it. Look at the calories. Was it worth it? 🤔
Somehow I doubt most loggers on a budget will think so!10 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.8 -
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.
Really? That 1/5 of gin each night is better than sugar? Surely there are worse things I can put in my body than refined sugar (gasp!).
Curious, you seem to have a LOT of statements going on in the forums that you want people to take as fact. In other threads, you tell them if they want evidence that they should google it. Are you a doctor or a keyboard "researcher"? "No safe amount of refined sugar?" How are we all not yet dead then?9 -
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?
3 -
I would argue that a serving size is 12 ounces, because that is the size of regular cans, and that is the serving size on 2 L bottles of both Pepsi and Coke.
(I am not a soda or juice drinker. They are both too sweet for me.)1 -
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 2002.2 -
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.
Good job getting your health in line. Yeah, there's no doubt people consume too much sugar and sugary drinks.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I would argue that a serving size is 12 ounces, because that is the size of regular cans, and that is the serving size on 2 L bottles of both Pepsi and Coke.
(I am not a soda or juice drinker. They are both too sweet for me.)
Leave it to the them to change what a serving size might be considering a serving size of most liquids like orange juice and milk is 8 oz. shout out to lobbyists, good job for increasing the bottom line.2 -
Ok, I'm done here, later. cheers. 1
-
So I'll live to 95 instead of 100.
"For a daily consumption of the current standard 20-ounce serving size for sugar-sweetened sodas, this corresponds to 4.6 additional years of aging," the study found, an amount of telomere shortening similar to that associated with smoking cigarettes. Nov 7, #1 Worst Drink That Ages You Faster, Says Science
This popular beverage could be speeding up the aging process, researchers say. Since time immemorial, people have been trying to find the proverbial fountain of youth. The pursuit for an ageless appearance along with a longer, healthier life remains a major goal for countless people today.
While anti-aging creams and devices, supplements that promise greater longevity, and diets that claim to turn back the clock may help you feel younger, there may also be an easier way to slow down the aging process. Research indicates there's one drink that can age you faster, and cutting it from your diet may help stop your premature aging in its tracks.
When it comes to aging, there's no drink worse than sugar-sweetened soda. Drinking soda on a consistent basis has been known to lead to an increase in the risk of weight gain and certain diseases, and research shows that it can even affect your body on a cellular level. All of these components contribute to unhealthier, more rapid aging.
"Consuming sugar-sweetened beverages on a regular basis can ultimately put you at risk for a variety of diseases like obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and more," says Amy Goodson, MS, RD, CSSD, LD, author of The Sports Nutrition Playbook and member of our Expert Medical Board. "Because our risk for these diseases automatically increases as we age, adding excessive sugar to the aging equation does not help.
Soda can increase your risk for disease. One of the main ways consistent soda consumption can speed up your aging process is by increasing your risk of diseases in which aging is already a risk factor. As Goodson mentioned, this includes things like type 2 diabetes and heart disease.
According to a 2019 report published in Nutrients, sugar-sweetened beverage consumption was associated with type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease, regardless of whether or not a person was also obese. One smaller cohort study done with female teachers in California found that consuming one or more servings of sugar-sweetened beverages per day was associated with cardiovascular disease and stroke risk after a 25-year follow-up.
Soda can increase your risk for disease, but it can also negatively affect your body's cells, too.
Soda can impact your body on a cellular level
According to a 2014 study published in the American Journal of Public Health, sugary drinks can cause premature aging on a cellular level.
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.
What the researchers found was that individuals who drank more sugar-sweetened drinks had shorter telomeres—sections of DNA at the end of chromosomes—within their white blood cells. Shortened telomeres in white blood cells have been linked to reduced longevity and an increased risk of chronic disease.
"Regular consumption of sugar-sweetened sodas might influence disease development, not only by straining the body's metabolic control of sugars but also through accelerated cellular aging of tissues," explained the study's senior author Elissa Epel, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at UCSF, in a statement.
"This is the first demonstration that soda is associated with telomere shortness," added Epel. "This finding held regardless of age, race, income, and education level. Telomere shortening starts long before disease onset." Epel added that, while the study was conducted exclusively on adults, this may hold true for children, too.
While the study's researchers were quick to point out that this finding is an association, not definitive causation, the long-term effects are quite pronounced. "For a daily consumption of the current standard 20-ounce serving size for sugar-sweetened sodas, this corresponds to 4.6 additional years of aging," the study found, an amount of telomere shortening similar to that associated with smoking cigarettes. Soda can mess with your gut, too. A 2021 review published in Current Nutrition Reports found that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, like soda, was associated with changes to gut bacteria and the intestinal microbiota, inflammation, and oxidative stress, all of which are linked to premature aging. That study's authors had a simple recommendation to help mitigate these effects: replace soda with a healthier drink choice whenever you can.
So, the next time you have a craving for something bubbly, maybe consider a seltzer with lemon instead—your body will thank you
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5 -
LiveOnceBeHappy 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.
Really? That 1/5 of gin each night is better than sugar? Surely there are worse things I can put in my body than refined sugar (gasp!).
Curious, you seem to have a LOT of statements going on in the forums that you want people to take as fact. In other threads, you tell them if they want evidence that they should google it. Are you a doctor or a keyboard "researcher"? "No safe amount of refined sugar?" How are we all not yet dead then?
Well if the sugar isn't remove from the blood, we would die, that how, shout out to insulin.0 -
kshama2001 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.
3 -
kshama2001 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.0 -
So if 20oz per day (140oz/wk) shortens life by 4.6 years, then my 12oz/wk will result in a loss of .39 years. I reckon that's more than offset by the extra 3.4 years from regular exercise. Or is it 0.4 years? Or 6.9 years? The internet has so many different links with different answers...6
-
Does NAME-OF-SODA-ZERO count as a telomere shortening soda or not
What is the effect of 20oz of apple or orange juice
How about 15 hard candies or two 100g milk chocolate bars instead
Inquiring minds want to know
I've yet to encounter the MFPer who logs their full sugar calorie sodas and thinks they represent a ragingly great caloric value for them--one they seek to repeat several times a day every day. I am sure they might exist somewhere. It's just that I've only run into the ones who seem to drink and log an OCCASIONAL non-sugar-free soda. Cause... numbers: they add up!
Haha!
I do drink a small glass or two of zero soda for dinner. And when I'm on summer vacation I might drink quite a lot lemon soda because it fits hot weather. Probably means I'll die a few years earlier. Oh well, at least I enjoyed it.2 -
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.
2 -
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 because sugars been studied ad nauseam. Cheers 2 -
neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 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.
3 -
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 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. 2 -
neanderthin wrote: »kshama2001 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.0 -
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
2 -
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. 4 -
Sorry for the post if it offended anyone. lol
Though some posters make it hard to determine, most of us are capable of disliking a post while fully appreciating the spirit of the poster, trying to share knowledge you feel can help improve the health and lives of others. Please don't be offended by the reactions of posters not agreeing with the information provided. To paraphrase,
"Hate the game, not the player."5 -
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
No one was attacking you personally... just the study that was connected to your post.
Yes, soda raises glucose levels in the blood, but then so does just about anything you eat except for pure fat. The fatty liver thing - if you get your weight under control, that will pretty much resolve itself as well.
Sodas, as with a lot of things in life, can be neutral, bad or good (think endurance athletes who need a quick hit of energy to continue competing). As the saying goes, the dose makes the poison and circumstances matter a whole lot.8 -
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.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions