Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 581

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 600

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 699

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/classes.php on line 724

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 57

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /home/misha/public_html/2006/wp-includes/cache.php on line 404
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Piling on Research

Report says sugary drinks pile on pounds
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE, AP Medical Writer

Oh goody, another AP Medical Writer, I can’t wait….

Americans have sipped and slurped their way to fatness by drinking far more soda and other sugary drinks over the last four decades, a new scientific review concludes.

We really don’t need to go much farther do we? Why does virtually anything new and scientific lead to a call for more Nanny State regulations and of course, more money to gin up even more regulations. No pattern here…

An extra can of soda a day can pile on 15 pounds in a single year, and the “weight of evidence” strongly suggests that this sort of increased consumption is a key reason that more people have gained weight, the researchers say.

Buuwaaahaaaa…”Weight of Evidence”…. stick to writing pandering news articles. Your (lack of) witty repartee won’t get you on public acces TV, let alone amateur comedy night. I can see it coming, a pitch for funding to research more research in the research of research.

“We tried to look at the big picture rather than individual studies,” and it clearly justifies public health efforts to limit sugar-sweetened beverages, said Dr. Frank Hu, who led the report published Tuesday in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

That’s interesting, sounds like you did research on research. No, I was’t distracted by the “big picture” argument and clearly see the real message is MORE gubmint regulations on what YOU think we should eat or drink. “Health Efforts” indeed.

He and others at the Harvard School of Public Health reviewed 40 years of nutrition studies that met strict standards for relevance and scientific muster. The work was funded by ongoing grants to his lab from the federal government and the American Heart Association.

So you did spend my tax dollars researching previous research. “Strict standards for Relevance?” The standards of relevance being only those that agreed with your agenda from the outset.

Soft drink trends have marched lock-step with the growing obesity epidemic, but industry groups have long fought efforts to say one directly caused the other. Not all studies conclude that beverages are at fault, and the new analysis ignored some that would have discounted such a link, the American Beverage Association said in a statement issued in response to the study.

And Academia continues their lock-step march in calls for MORE taxpayer funding, based on bullshit and Scary Science™. The obligatory swipe at the eeevill capitalist bourgeoise beverage industry, is duly noted.

“Blaming one specific product or ingredient as the root cause of obesity defies common sense. Instead, there are many contributing factors, including regular physical activity,” says a statement from the group’s senior science consultant, Richard Adamson.

Thank you Mr. Adamson, you just neutered the swill and shill coming out of Havvvaaahd Yaaahd. Common sense, a virtue entirley discounted in the hallowed, ivy covered halls. We are expected to turn off “common sense” when it’s notaby absent if the mouth has a phD. That is what the intelligentsia really really want, hear their message, believe and let me take “care” of us.

However, Dr. David Ludwig, director of the obesity program at Children’s Hospital in Boston and a longtime advocate of curbs on soda, said blaming other factors misses the point.
“Could you imagine somebody saying we should ignore the contribution of hypertension to heart attack because there are many causes? It’s ludicrous. Yet this argument resurfaces with regard to obesity,” Ludwig said.

There they go again…Granny always said “One will lie and the other will swear to it!” Dr. Ludwig steps up to the plate and strikes out on the credibility-puffing pitch. Care for a game of poker Doc? I promise to be benevolent (never been accused of that before) and give you a little hint. Don’t show your cards until after you call. Buttmunch.

When it comes to beverage trends and obesity, “it’s like documenting the force of gravity,” he said. “There’s an overwhelmingly strong case to be made for a causal relationship.”

Of course it’s fattening. No Argument. But let US make the choice in eating or drinking things that may or may not be good for us. While we’re at it we can take time to teach our own children properly. We don’t need or want, academic lackeys slurping at the taxpayer fund trough, depriving of our freedom of choice. I would however like to propose a test, load food nazis into C-130s, climb to 20,000 feet and push them off the ramp to document the force of gravity.

About one-third of all carbohydrate calories in the American diet come from added sweeteners, and beverages account for about half of this amount, the new report says.

The main sweetener in beverages — high-fructose corn syrup — contains slightly more fructose than ordinary table sugar. Some studies suggest that pure fructose fails to spur production of insulin, which is needed to “process” calories, or leptin, a substance that helps regulate appetite.

I would expect that something called “High-Fructose” just might, have more fructose in it than any thing other than a “Higher-Fructose” something.

Industry scientists say this small difference in fructose content does not justify some nutrition experts’ arguments that sweetened beverages are less satisfying.

Regardless of this debate, a single 12-ounce can of soda provides the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of table sugar, the Harvard review says.

The 30 studies included in the new review are of different types — experiments where beverages were curtailed or modified, studies of cross-sections of the population. While all do not show harm, they collectively suggest that soda and sugary drinks “should be discouraged,” the authors write.

So exactly how many of the 30 studies studied did not show harm, in order for your collective judgement that sugary drinks be banned outlawed discouraged ?

Federal dietary guidelines recommend beverages without added sugars, and the
World Health Organization advises that added sugars should provide no more than 10 percent of total calories.

Increasingly, sugary drinks are being restricted in schools. In May, top beverage distributors agreed to stop selling non-diet sodas in certain schools and restricted sales in certain settings where young children buy them.

Absolutely, our despised esteemed legislators made banning soda in schools a centerpiece of their legislative agenda. They adjourned patting themselves on the back because it’s for the chilldddrrreeennnnnn…..

…mheh…..

21 Responses to “Piling on Research”
  1. Unregistered Comment by tradewind UNITED STATES

    Wow… where do they get these giant intellects?

    Next they will opine that air and water are necessary to sustain life on earth, too.

  2. Unregistered Comment by teqjack UNITED STATES

    See The Other Side of the Soda Fat Scare Story excerpt -
    = = = = =
    … there is clearly another side to the story that is nowhere to be found in this week’s headlines.

    That other side not mentioned in the AJCN study includes a 2002 report from the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine that reviewed 300 studies — 10 times more studies than were reviewed in the AJCN study — and concluded, “There is no clear and consistent association between increased intake of added sugars and [body weight].”

    The AJCN study also omits mention of a May 2005 article in the journal Obesity Reviews that concluded, “Overweight status was not associated with the intake of fruits, vegetables, and soft drinks or time spent on the computer.”

    The Obesity Reviews study involved 137,593 adolescents — more than the total number of study subjects and more than twice the number of adolescents than included in all 30 studies in the AJCN study.
    = = = = = =

  3. JannyMae Comment by JannyMae UNITED STATES

    Gotta keep that grant money coming somehow!

    What a crock. The soda/weight gain hypothesis has been so thoroughly debunked, yet these guys are touting it anyway? What a bunch of idiots.

    Quick poll:

    Does anybody know anyone who is THIN, who drinks, “diet,” soda? I can’t think of anyone I know….

  4. LC Wil Comment by LC Wil UNITED STATES

    …..aaaaaaannd DAYLIGHT is caused by that BIG HONKIN’ BALL OF FIRE IN THE SKY!

    In other news, rain is caused by water falling from the sky, and muzzies worship a pedophile and a rock.

    The New York Slimes lies.

    . . . well, as long as we are having Big News Day . . .

    Are you really THAT fucking oblivious, Marilynn? What have you been smokin? (and where can I get a pound?)

    Do we REEEEEEAAALLLLY need more nannystatism? You live your life, I’ll live mine, ne’er the twain shall meet. And I won’t have to bitchslap you for STICKING YER NOSE IN MY BUSINESS.

    .

    dumbass

  5. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Okay, you’re a stronger man than I, Jackboot.

    I can’t even get past the headlines of junk science articles, much less read them indepth enough to fisk them.

    Sugar is NOT fattening in ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM! If you lived on a pure sugar diet, you would die in a couple of days from lack of calories (among other problems you’d have). The human body CANNOT store simple carbohydrates in any way. That’s the reason for “sugar highs”…the body can’t store this large amount of energy producing material, so, it has to use it.

    Now, any complex carbohydrate you consume with that suger CAN be stored, so, THAT will be stored while your body is going gonzo on the sugar.

    All that being said, I have been called “weird” for, among other reasons, my near-total avoidance of things that are high in sugar. I just don’t like the taste of it. Many diet colas are too sweet for my tastes.

  6. LC HJ Caveman82952 Comment by LC HJ Caveman82952 UNITED STATES

    Your tax dollars at work…using the term loosely. They wouldn’t pile on the pounds doing what many do at work….as I did today. During my daily associations with the public…..I’ve seen some desk jockeys and chair operators….but the trashman is quite fit, his job is dam hard. As are the laborers I encounter. I myself have calloused hands…I enjoy work ..sometimes the job requires desk work, other times strenuous labor. People can play hard too. I drink fruit juices, Gatorade and energy drinks. Sofa slugs doing twelve ounce curls do tend to develop an increase in inertia. And I am a trim two hundred. Not bad for a middle aged guy. And nobody had to spend a god dammned dime to figure that out….now why couldn’t they have sent me the money?

  7. LC HJ Caveman82952 Comment by LC HJ Caveman82952 UNITED STATES

    what also boggles the mind is tryin’ to tell people sugar is not fattening…I gave up years ago…….

  8. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Caveman,

    .but the trashman is quite fit, his job is dam hard.

    I get paid to get four times the workout that desk jockeys have to pay to pretend to get.

    Inactivity is the leading cause of obesity in the US. Reliance on quick fixes is the second leading cause. Poor diet is a distant third. Whatever the dietary supplement du jour claims to fix isn’t even a factor.

    I eat, literally, as much food as any two desk jockeys in a single day. I also don’t pay much attention to keeping my carbs down, or my fat down, or my cholestrol down. My level of activity makes doing that worthless.

    If you’re overweight, the best, most sure, most reliable way to lose the pounds is to change your activity level. Cutting out the sugar won’t even make a dent in your weight.

  9. Unregistered Comment by Robohobo54 UNITED STATES

    High fructose corn syrup is akin to poison to the body. We just don’t process it right. Diet soft drinks contain aspartame which is just as bad, it metabolizes to methanol in the body. More poison. Cane sugar does not cause a sugar high, it is processed correctly. Why do I know? Because when I quit diet sodas I felt 100% better. When I quit regualr soda, better still. Drink something that has cane sugar for a soda, they can be found. You don’t get fat and they taste better. Oh yeah and I am a “juicer”.

    JMHO

    The Hobo

  10. LC Moriarty Comment by LC Moriarty UNITED STATES

    Feh.

    I don’t bother with “pop medicine” articles like this anymore.

    If you’re overweight, get your ass to the gym. If your kids are overweight, turn the f*cking TV off, kick their asses outside and try acting like a parent for a change.

    Problem solved.

  11. bigdicksplace Comment by bigdicksplace UNITED STATES

    Next thing ya know, the headline will be

    FAT PEOPLE GET LAID LESS!

  12. Unregistered Comment by mrsdutoit UNITED STATES

    Actually, they get laid more.

    There is a happy/contented quotient with overweight people. They’re happier, have more sex, have more satisfying relationships.

    It seems their sated status doesn’t apply only to food.

  13. Unregistered Comment by Getalis UNITED STATES

    Does anybody know anyone who is THIN, who drinks, “diet,” soda? I can’t think of anyone I know….

    Well, for starters, I know myself… (rolls eyes)

    Seriously, how otherwise-intelligent people can believe that diet soda makes you fat simply amazes me.

    High fructose corn syrup is akin to poison to the body. We just don’t process it right. Diet soft drinks contain aspartame which is just as bad, it metabolizes to methanol in the body. More poison.

    Ug, more nonsense. Fructose is just another name for sugar, which gets broken down in the body just like any other carbohydrate. Aspartame is technically a protein and is broken down likewise. (As for the methanol bit, you really need to stay off the freako-hippie websites. The amount of methanol is so small and transient as to be utterly insignificant. You metabolize more methanol from a raw tomato.)

    And yes, you CAN get fat from consuming too much sugar. You can get fat from consuming too much of ANYTHING. Understanding this is the key to lifelong weight control.

  14. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    And yes, you CAN get fat from consuming too much sugar. You can get fat from consuming too much of ANYTHING. Understanding this is the key to lifelong weight control.

    Um…no.

    You will get THINNER by eating too much suger, not fatter.

    Sugar can not be stored by the human body in any way, shape, or form. So, it gets used immediately.

    Eating nothing but sugar for…oh…about a week…will cause you to LOSE weight, not gain it.

    It’s everything Americans eat with sugar that gets them fat. Don’t blame it on the sugar. Sugar is the base unit of energy in humans. Without sugar, we’d die.

  15. Unregistered Comment by Uchuck the Tuchuck

    Okay folks. I don’t drink sugared drinks. I haven’t drunk sugared drinks for twenty damn years. I weigh 400 pounds. Obviously, I gained all this weight from drinking sugared drinks, according to this study. Oh,no, wait a minute…I don’t drink the damn things. Could it be the fact that I eat too damn much and work too damn little? Nah, that couldn’t be it, because that would mean I am responsible for the shape I’m in. Since nobody is responsible for themselves (we all being unsuspecting victims of Big Soda, which is probably run by Bu$Hitler or at the very least by a Rethuglican) it has to be a conspiracy that only the DNC, Jesse Jackson and Oprah Winfrey can save us from.

  16. Unregistered Comment by Getalis UNITED STATES

    Um…no.

    You will get THINNER by eating too much suger, not fatter.

    Sugar can not be stored by the human body in any way, shape, or form. So, it gets used immediately.

    You are either an incredibly good actor, or are shockingly misinformed. Sugar most definitely CAN be stored in the human body- look up the word “glycogen.”

    You are correct in stating that glucose is the preferred fuel and the human body will deplete glucose stores first and foremost. However, the key to this is understanding that unused glucose simply doesn’t magically vanish. If you consume 1000 calories of sugar and only work off 750 of those calories, the rest will be stored as fat. All unutilized caloric energy, regardless of original source, is eventually converted in the body to fat for long-term storage.

    Where I think you may have been misled is in the efficiency of conversion. Converting dietary fat to body fat is obviously very efficient- only about 2% of the total energy is lost in the conversion. Protein loses about 10%, and carbohydrates lose a whopping 25%. So in the above example, the 250 calories of sugar would be converted to 190 calories of body fat- roughly one-twentieth of a pound.

    Bottom line- it’s all calories in/calories out. If you take in more than you burn off, you will gain weight. And vice versa.

  17. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Getalis,

    …ever heard of a “sugar high”?

    That’s the body using up all this sugar it has floating around that it can’t do anything else with.

    Complex carbohydrates are broken down into simple carbohydrates, like glucose, to use for energy. REALLY simply put, the body really doesn’t use anything OTHER than sugar for energy, since everything else it ‘uses’ for energy is broken down into sugars. Sugars are the basic energy unit for the body.

    Now, it also takes energy to make sugars into more complex carbohydrates, which are the ONLY way the body stores carbohydrates. So, if one were to figure out a way to consume ONLY sugars for their carbohydrates, they’d lose weight, both from the increased amount of activity caused by the “sugar high”, and the increased energy use of the body trying to turn those sugars into complex carbohydrates. So, once again, my assertion still stands. Your average home-economics class in high school will teach roughly the same thing.

    No, I’m not ’shockingly misinformed’. For most of my adult life, I’ve actually USED that process to my advantage, first, when I was a long distance runner, then, when I was Marine infantry, and now, that I’m a garbage man. So, please, spare me the jargon-speak. Theoretical babble is all fine and well in the lab. Practical application is where the jargon dies.

    A pure sugar diet will result in drastic, radical weight loss, prolly resulting in death in a couple of weeks, since sugar is one of the most toxic substances humans consume on a regular basis…

  18. Unregistered Comment by Ignorant Mensan UNITED STATES

    Well, I for one drink sodas (CocaCola) “don’t wanna go where there’s no CocaCola” all the time, and I am 5′4″ and weigh 110 lbs (and I had to work like hell gaining again from 96 lbs. after surgery, chemo and radiation). And I never weighed more than 97 lbs. until I was at least 40. So, screw their studies. And quit paying these idiots with my tax money.

  19. Wild-Eyed Charlie Comment by Wild-Eyed Charlie UNITED STATES

    (no avatar? DAMN.)

    Ug, more nonsense. Fructose is just another name for sugar, which gets broken down in the body just like any other carbohydrate. Aspartame is technically a protein and is broken down likewise. (As for the methanol bit, you really need to stay off the freako-hippie websites. The amount of methanol is so small and transient as to be utterly insignificant. You metabolize more methanol from a raw tomato.)

    Reminds me of the time some arschlechen attorney tried to claim that his client was driving drunk because he drank too much diet soda. He couldn’t even get the science right (booze contains ethanol; methanol would blind you and/or kill you). Not to mention that you’d have to drink about 680 gallons of diet soda to get high; you’d have no time to do anything other than pee…

  20. Unregistered Comment by Getalis UNITED STATES

    Getalis,

    …ever heard of a “sugar high”?

    Sure, just not from any Nutrition/Biochem text. (Wonder why that is?)

    Complex carbohydrates are broken down into simple carbohydrates, like glucose, to use for energy. REALLY simply put, the body really doesn’t use anything OTHER than sugar for energy, since everything else it ‘uses’ for energy is broken down into sugars. Sugars are the basic energy unit for the body.

    Sugar is the preferred source of energy, yes. But it most certainly isn’t the ONLY source. Protein can be used for energy in a pinch, as can ketone bodies (incomplete products of fat metabolism). Fat itself cannot be converted to sugar to any appreciable extent.

    Now, it also takes energy to make sugars into more complex carbohydrates, which are the ONLY way the body stores carbohydrates. So, if one were to figure out a way to consume ONLY sugars for their carbohydrates, they’d lose weight, both from the increased amount of activity caused by the “sugar high”, and the increased energy use of the body trying to turn those sugars into complex carbohydrates. So, once again, my assertion still stands.

    This is the Susan Powter philosophy of weight loss, and it’s total bunk. (The late Dr. Atkins had a similar dopey formula, swapping fat for sugar.) If you consume only sugar, your weight loss/gain will be entirely dependent upon calories consumed vs. calories burned. There is nothing magical about caloric energy derived from carbohydrates that exempts them from the basic laws of thermodynamics.

    No, I’m not ’shockingly misinformed’. For most of my adult life, I’ve actually USED that process to my advantage, first, when I was a long distance runner, then, when I was Marine infantry, and now, that I’m a garbage man.

    And you were probably consuming something like 1500 calories per day, with a good amount of exercise thrown in. It wasn’t what you ate that resulted in weight loss, it was the amount!

    A pure sugar diet will result in drastic, radical weight loss, prolly resulting in death in a couple of weeks, since sugar is one of the most toxic substances humans consume on a regular basis…

    One would die from malnutrition, but not due to any inherent toxicity from sugar. Glucose is like any other substance- some amount is essential for life, higher amounts are optional depending on personal preference, and yet higher amounts under certain circumstances will kill you. Ditto water, sunlight, oxygen, etc.

  21. Unregistered Comment by LC The Humble Devildog, Imperial Scholar UNITED STATES

    Getalis,

    You don’t read very well, do you?

    1) I made no claims as to how much energy it takes to raise a simple carbohydrate to a complex carbohydrate, only that it does. I don’t even know who the fuck Susan Powter is, much less pay enough attention to her twaddle to believe it, and Dr Atkins is satisfyingly dead, and I wish his idiotic diet would have died with him. As you said “There’s nothing magical…that exempts them from the basic laws of thermodynamics” (ellipses only used to skip over that part that wasn’t relevant to my comment, not to Dowderize. The context is exactly the same.) Simple physical sciences and thermodynamics CLEARLY state that it takes energy to raise something a higher energy state…and a complex carbohydrate is a higher energy state than a simple carbohydrate…which is what I pointed out. Please, try to refute that. It will be interesting to watch.

    2) A sugar-primary diet will cause you to gain weight, if the calories aren’t used. As I’ve mentioned MANY times here, weight loss is a simple equation of caloric intake v. caloric use. BUT, trying to subsist on ONLY sugar will NOT work. You could eat 3,000 calories a day of sugar, and you’d be hard pressed to have enough ‘get up and go’ to make it much past noon. In addition, if you did try to subsist SOLELY on sugar, you would more than likely hit LD50 of sugar…which would give you a 50/50 chance of dying, since that’s what LD50 means. Sugar, in RELATIVELY lower doses than most other consumable items, is toxic. As is water. But, it takes many pounds more of water to be toxic than sugar. Salt is the only thing that springs to mind that is worse in RELATIVELY too high of quantities than sugar. It doesn’t take that much salt to kill a person.

    3) The human body is designed (that word is used with all implications intended) to need X, Y, and Z amounts of A, B, and C nutrients, sugar being one of them. I stopped paying attention to ANY nutritionists years ago when they started babbling about the human body needing nutrients in quantities that were IMPOSSIBLE to find in Nature…like, vitamin C. For some stupid reason, human beings have been getting along just fine on the nutrients that have been in naturally occuring quantities in naturally occuring foods. ANY deviation from those naturally occuring quantities is either A) unhealthy, or B) based upon the erroneous assumption that the human body is somehow out of syncronicity with the dietary supplies of naturally occuring foods. Since the human body is designed to use up sugar, it does. BUT, once a person starts consuming sugar in quantities not readily available in naturally occuring foods, that person runs into trouble. Same with ANY nutrient, including proteins.

    Eat a balanced diet, don’t consume ANYTHING to excess, and get off your ass and do something, and you’ll lose weight and maintain a moderately healthy life. Eat the approximate number of calories you need to maintain your weight at your activity level, and you’ll maintain weight. Eat less than that, and you’ll lose weight. Eat more than that, and you’ll gain weight. Simple math. (as an example, for my normal activity level, I need to consume ~3000 calories a day (if I’m remembering the chart correctly) to maintain my 200 lb weight. I have a hard time finding that many calories to consume.)

    Yes, I know that what I just said, if *finally* understood by most Americans, would put quite a few people out of work. But, I’m going to trust that the Creator designed my body to use what I can readily find in Nature. It’s *only* worked for the past 6,000 years. I see no reason why it won’t keep working.