Slashdot Mirror
Cola Consumption Can Lead To Muscle Problems
wjousts writes "As I'm sure many Slashdot readers live almost exclusively on cola drinks, a new warning from doctors:
'Doctors have issued a warning about excessive cola consumption after noticing an increase in the number of patients suffering from muscle problems, according to the June issue of IJCP, the International Journal of Clinical Practice. ... 'Evidence is increasing to suggest that excessive cola consumption can also lead to hypokalaemia, in which the blood potassium levels fall, causing an adverse effect on vital muscle functions.' And sorry, diet colas aren't any better."
I drink mountain dew instead.
Define "excessive", please.
Bananas contain lots of potassium.
Solution is obvious: drink all the cola you want, just make sure to supplement with banana ice cream. Added advantage of calcium and magnesium in the ice cream (also necessary for proper muscle function).
This post brought to you by Dole-omite and Benn & Gerry's.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I fear for Abby (NCIS).
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
But if you mix cola and uncola, they annihilate each other, producing huge amounts of pure energy. Be careful!
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
AFAIK hypoalkemia can be caused by fluid intake of any type in excess e.g. the mother who died recently on a radio program after drinking too much water. TFA doesn't state if cola affects it more than say water.
I know cola has a lot more bad stuff in it but does is it a major catalyst of hypoalkemia?
Looks like the reporter just wanted to make a sensational headline.
Hypokalemia is very dramatic. Not. According to Wikipedia:
Mild hypokalemia is often without symptoms, although it may cause a small elevation of blood pressure,[5] and can occasionally provoke cardiac arrhythmias. Moderate hypokalemia, with serum potassium concentrations of 2.5-3 mEq/L, may cause muscular weakness, myalgia, and muscle cramps (owing to disturbed function of the skeletal muscles), and constipation (from disturbed function of smooth muscles).
In other words you might have cramps and the likes, and be constipated. And what's the no less dramatic cure to this terrible ailment? Oral potassium chloride supplements (Klor-Con, Sando-K, Slow-K) or just eating leafy green vegetables, tomatoes, citrus fruits, oranges or bananas.
Really, thanks for that Slashdot. While we're at it, did you know that it is estimated that over 40% of the population has B12 deficiency, and that it can cause tiredness, decreased mental work capacity, decreased concentration and decreased memory, irritability and depression?
You just got troll'd!
chemical-ultratoxin kills faster than bullet
That would explain the piles of dead bodies that I see stacked up next to every soda fountain and convenience store on a daily basis, what with it being faster than a bullet and all.
Okay, I just can't help it - I really hope you are a non-native English speaker. Otherwise, I'm afraid I'm going to have to rewrite your post:
What's the difference. Diet (sic!) drinks use aspartam (sic) as a substitute for sugar. Well, for anyone who has (sic) IQ higer (sic) than typical showel (sic) or (sic) brick, I must (sic) not to (sic) explain, (sic) that this chemical-ultratoxin kills faster than (sic) bullet.
If you are a native English speaker, you have the IQ of a showel.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
Yes, a very very slow bullet.
I'm not sure what a "showel" is, but: There is no convincing evidence that moderate consumption of aspartame causes harm. The evidence was all from "accelerated failure studies", where they gave mice extreme doses and extrapolated back to normal consumption. Well, that's not bad for a first approximation, and diet drinks had a cancer warning label for a while. However, the studies were refuted early on and now time has borne out that the studies were incorrect. There's apparently a threshold effect, and under a certain dosage (which is quite high), it's perfectly safe.
If you want to worry about something, worry about brominated vegetable oil, which is used in Mt. Dew and other citrus sodas to disperse the citrus oils uniformly in the drink. Or, if you really want to worry about something which actually has a non-negligible chance of killing/disabling you, look both ways before crossing the street and always wear your seatbelt; and (a distant second) don't smoke.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
So what ingredient of cola does this? Last I read most popular cola drinks like Coke and Pepsi are nothing more than sugar, water, cinnamon, vanilla and phosphoric acid. Most cola drinks do not even have kola nut ingredients in them.
On thing is sure I stopped drinking the stuff regularly when I went to the dentist and had eleven cavities. Yes I brush twice a day and use the water pick. The trick is to rinse your mouth out after drinking very acidic and sugary drinks. As soon as you drink the acid begins to attack your enamel so after your done with a soda rinse your mouth out thoroughly with water. The few hours between drinking an acidic drink and brushing is more than enough time for acids to attack your teeth. This is what my dentist told me as he was drilling, not fun.
I figured out that cola was bad for you when I heard of the school science experiment where you put old teeth (baby teeth or animal teeth) in cola for a couple of days and let them disintegrate!
I figured out fresh fruit was bad for you when I heard of the school science experiment where you put some fruit on a dish, and a couple days later its covered in toxic molds.
Unless you wander around with a mouthful of cola in your mouth for days at a time, your conclusion is about as absurd as mine is.
Now I'm not arguing cola is good for you, but the experiment you are referring to is irrelevant. After all, the body normally contains far stronger acids than mere cola.
Might explain why I had a major hankering for bananas :P Eating as many as two or more per day. Bananas freakin' rock, the perfect fruit! Comes in it's own 'packaging', the flavor varies by ripeness (I like 'em a bit green), easily blended, no seeds to pick or spit out, and cheap and easily available.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
I only have to worry about a shrinking penis.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/potables/mountaindew.asp
There are plenty of other old wives tales telling how bad soda is for you, such as the suggetsion of using it for removing rusty lug nuts.
Of course, plain old tap water can be substituted for soda in most of these old wives tales, and the result is the same.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I'll have to rewrite your post:
If you are a native English speaker, you have the IQ of a (sic) showel.
Next they'll tell us that pizza, lack of sun, and too much pr0n leads to painful death.
Table-ized A.I.
Yes, a very very slow bullet.
I'm not sure what a "showel" is, but: There is no convincing evidence that moderate consumption of aspartame causes harm. The evidence was all from "accelerated failure studies", where they gave mice extreme doses and extrapolated back to normal consumption. Well, that's not bad for a first approximation, and diet drinks had a cancer warning label for a while. However, the studies were refuted early on and now time has borne out that the studies were incorrect. There's apparently a threshold effect, and under a certain dosage (which is quite high), it's perfectly safe.
For very small values of "perfect."
Artificial sweeteners may not be the certain cancer death they were once thought to be. However, there's still a few issues with them:
* Asparatame breaks down into asparatase and methyl alcohol at higher temperatures, such as those used in baking, and during certain chemical processes, such as the digestive process. Methyl alcohol is toxic to humans.
* Sucralose interacts badly with certain medications, including those taken by cancer patients to prevent recurrences.
* ALL sweeteners, regardless of their source or chemical composition, trigger insulin production in the same way that sugar does. This is a reflexive response, where the body ramps up insulin production in response to the *taste* of sweet, not waiting until blood sugar actually goes up. This results in lower blood sugar levels in response to non-nutritive sweeteners, which induces hunger and sugar/carb cravings. This is why switching to diet soda from regular causes weight *gain* rather than loss in often-replicated studies.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
There is no convincing evidence that moderate consumption of aspartame causes harm.
September 30, 1980-- The Public Board of Inquiry concludes NutraSweet should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. The board states it "has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive."
January 1981-- Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.
January 21, 1981-- Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the United States. Reagan's transition team, which includes Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle, hand picks Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.
March, 1981-- An FDA commissioner's panel is established to review issues raised by the Public Board of Inquiry.
May 19, 1981-- Three of six in-house FDA scientists who were responsible for reviewing the brain tumor issues, Dr. Robert Condon, Dr. Satya Dubey, and Dr. Douglas Park, advise against approval of NutraSweet, stating on the record that the Searle tests are unreliable and not adequate to determine the safety of aspartame.
July 15, 1981-- In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products.
You can't take the sky from me...
Respect for the danger would be a good idea. Hypokalemia can cause arrhythmia. And hyperkalemia can also cause ... you guessed it, arrhythmia. And arrhythmia can cause death, with little warning. In fact, if your potassium level gets low enough or high enough, it is guaranteed that you will die from it, promptly. A single hypodermic syringe of non-diluted potassium chloride is practically guaranteed to send you to meet your maker within a couple of minutes.
Lots of things can cause the level to get too low or too high. A reasonable consumption of soft drinks, alone, is highly unlikely to do you in, but it is playing with a chemical balance which is extremely critical to life. When you add this factor to a bunch of other potential factors, you best pay attention. And your suggested potassium supplements can be extremely dangerous. They are for cases where serious danger is already proved, and even then require close supervision. It is much too easy to throw the balance off in one direction or the other. The vegetables and fruits you suggest are safer, but even then you would need testing to establish the right balance.
I am not a physician, but my grandfather was. Physiology is an interest of mine.
...but the muscles in my fingers have given up..
If it doesn't have Kola Nut, it's not a Kola, or a Cola. Do they mean to say "carbonated beverages"?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The caffeine levels in Coke or Pepsi are very low compared to coffee; approximately 10%.
Canada Health recommends no more than 400 mg of caffeine a day. To exceed this, you'd have to drink 12 L of Coke. On the other hand, only two extra large Double Doubles will bring you to that limit.
18% of all Canadian aged 31 through 50 exceed this limit, and it's not from drinking cola. The typical Canadian coffee drinker aged 31 through 50 averages over 600 mg a day.[1]
OK, the person that wrote the article really needs to stop using the term "cola" in place of "soft drink".
Soft drinks come in many flavors including cola flavor.
From my reading of the article, the soft drink can be any flavor and still be a problem if they contain any of the three ingredients listed (none of which include cola or cola flavor).
Get it right!
...from my limp, pallid hands.
September 30, 1980-- The Public Board of Inquiry concludes NutraSweet should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. The board states it "has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive."
Do you have any idea how much aspartame they force-fed those animals to provoke a (possible) carcinogenic response?
Do you care?
Gee, this is hardly surprising. Who'd have thought that over-indulgence of soft drinks (or 'adult' drinks like beer and liquor) would result in physical problems?
With soda/cola/pop/whatever, you are consuming a supersaturate. There is a shitload of sugar in there, and its consumption will dehydrate you. And it's not all that good for the ol' pancreas, either.
Diet sodas are also a problem, as they have aspartame in them. Aspartame is a mild neurotoxin. No, you won't get dehydrated and get muscle fatigue that way, but you sure as hell will cause problems down the line. Some people who are highly environmentally sensitive will have an allergic/asthmatic reaction to the stuff.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The main reason they did not approve was not due to REAL danger , it was due to the absence of proper documentation. The LD59 and LD90 of aspartam as so high that you would have way more problem before long before entering any danger zone. .
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Most geeks can not carry stuff > 50 pounds. No wonder why.
The problem is, if you are in IT, you are expected to move machines around, and they ranged from 50 to 100 pounds.
And that is also why in most of the time, most IT supervisor does NOT have an CS or IT degree. I have seen interviewers that only has a music degree.
New Economic Perspectives
Just as the article states that the excessive drinking of cola drinks can cause problems with low potassium. What it doesn't tell you is that the phosphoric acid found in these drinks can also lead to being hypocalcemic. As the acid usually displaces the calcium that's found in the blood stream, and raises the phosphoric levels. The side affects of hypocalcemia can range from numbing/tingling of the extremities, tetany(seizing of the muscle), all the way to seizures and even death in most extreme cases. To those who have a rare condition called Hypoparathyroidism, it can become life threatening withing minutes of we call a "crash". We use the term "crash" to signify that the blood calcium to have suddenly dropped to low levels and start become symptomatic. When that happens and the person can't get bring the levels back up. The next course of action would to get the person to emergency room as fast as possible. The thing is anyone can become hypocalcemic at anytime. Especially when they are on really poor diet.
Beware the soda drink epidemic that is paralyzing our muscles while the swine-flu pandemic threat is at level-5, terrorists are playing in your backyard, child abductors and serial killers are lurking right outside your home , the Iranian nuclear threat is coming to a theater near you, and global warming is killing the planet.
Let us know if we left out anything, we will be more than happy to give you a reason to fear those too.
This condition is a result of low potassium. Just eat a freakin banana or two.
Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
I was 4-5 years ago a heavy Coca-Cola, Fanta and Sprite user. Before that Pepsi Max.
I drank about 3-6 liter a week.
Then suddenly one day, I got stomach pains from Fanta. Coca-Cola had just changed the bottle of the Fanta and same time seems to have changed the mixture as well someway. Because the color was clearly different on the store shelfs where was old and new bottle next each other.
So I changed to Coca-Cola and used it one year without problems. Then again, suddenly I started to get problems of urinating. I got feeling that I need to go bathroom to pass some water but never actually had anything.
On that time I made choice to stop using all that stuff.
And after few years on friend of my passed to me a Coca-Cola drink on the bar (I do not drink alcohol or coffee/tee and I have never drank those) and it was just 0.33cl bottle and I got same problem 5min after drinkin it.
But, I have other problems now as well. My motor functions on my hand and leg muscles starts trembling if I take 0.33cl or more.
You can not see it, but I can feel it how some muscles just twitch little bit and It does not feel nice when it takes about 3-4 hours as that.
If those drinks would be invented now, they would never pass haleness authorities tests. Those are just poison for humans and we let our childrens to drink those every day.
It is just too bad thing to even think that we can not turn those off because the companies who manufacture those, like Coca-Cola, are too powerfull and rich to keep their companies running.
And what makes even worse (and funny in first time) is that most WHO recommences are paid by those companies, about how much a day you can enjoy of cola, ice-cream, chocolate etc.
When you check out the sponsors of all studies about the daily sugar amount what is "good", you only find those big companies who manufactures all candies, sodas and other stuff.
There is many other studies, what ain't paid by those companies and all the amounts what got enough for daily usage for adult human, was almost every situation a 1/10 of the same suggestions of what these companies has paid.
And you can think it this way.
On these days humans eat more healthy, they have removed fat almost totally. But same time we use more sugar, white flour, artificial fat from vegetable oil (vegetable fat does not exist anywhere on the world in that form. Totally artificial! It was designed on WWII on UK when there was not enough cattle to get real fat and people needed fat to bake. So scientics developed artificial fat from vegetable oil. Because oil could not be used on baking. And that does not include anything good for humans, just stress more human body than real fat what goes through the human body if not overused).
Human race will eventually vanish itself by just these big companies.
Oh, and have you seen the Supersize me Document? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1432315846377280008
Who says we should eat 3 meals a day every day? How about: put more effort into selecting and preparing our meals, eat fewer meals! I find I'm way less hungry if I go longer without eating - as I'm not constantly 3 or 4 hours after the last big meal. The hunger sensation goes away if you get past it (a good analogy is the vibrations of breaking the "sound barrier" in a jet airplane, you throttle past it). In the USA, family and friends are so programmed to do the "3 meals a day" thing that practically nobody questions it.
Discovery of this study changed my life. Now, some days I just eat one big meal, I focus more on enjoying that meal. If you have only one meal in a day: 2 hours to enjoy the meal, read while I'm eating or socialize with friends. I focus more on the quality of food, not quantity. Eating less frequently is a lifestyle change, not a diet!
From: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16529878
=======================
"The effect on health of alternate day calorie restriction: eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life."
Restricting caloric intake to 60-70% of normal adult weight maintenance requirement prolongs lifespan 30-50% and confers near perfect health across a broad range of species. Every other day feeding produces similar effects in rodents, and profound beneficial physiologic changes have been demonstrated in the absence of weight loss in ob/ob mice. Since May 2003 we have experimented with alternate day calorie restriction, one day consuming 20-50% of estimated daily caloric requirement and the next day ad lib eating, and have observed health benefits starting in as little as two weeks, in insulin resistance, asthma, seasonal allergies, infectious diseases of viral, bacterial and fungal origin (viral URI, recurrent bacterial tonsillitis, chronic sinusitis, periodontal disease), autoimmune disorder (rheumatoid arthritis), osteoarthritis, symptoms due to CNS inflammatory lesions (Tourette's, Meniere's) cardiac arrhythmias (PVCs, atrial fibrillation), menopause related hot flashes. We hypothesize that other many conditions would be delayed, prevented or improved, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, brain injury due to thrombotic stroke atherosclerosis, NIDDM, congestive heart failure. Our hypothesis is supported by an article from 1957 in the Spanish medical literature which due to a translation error has been construed by several authors to be the only existing example of calorie restriction with good nutrition. We contend for reasons cited that there was no reduction in calories overall, but that the subjects were eating, on alternate days, either 900 calories or 2300 calories, averaging 1600, and that body weight was maintained. Thus they consumed either 56% or 144% of daily caloric requirement. The subjects were in a residence for old people, and all were in perfect health and over 65. Over three years, there were 6 deaths among 60 study subjects and 13 deaths among 60 ad lib-fed controls, non-significant difference. Study subjects were in hospital 123 days, controls 219, highly significant difference. We believe widespread use of this pattern of eating could impact influenza epidemics and other communicable diseases by improving resistance to infection. In addition to the health effects, this pattern of eating has proven to be a good method of weight control, and we are continuing to study the process in conjunction with the NIH.
Considering this comes from the International Journal of Clinical Practice it sounds awfully unscientific. Of course this could just be bad editing and a poor choice of headline.
What is Coke? It is causing it? What in Coke is causing it is a better question, and likely the answer is sugar. 9 x 40g = 360g a DAY in ONLY cola. That's a third of a kilo, not including sugar you get from other sources. Go look at what 1kg of sugar looks like in the supermarket, and try and eat it in 3 days! In which case, Cola isn't the problem, it is sugary drinks in which there are plenty.
For the Record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
And my fav:
http://xkcd.com/552/
I find usually very smart people do not understand this very simple logical fact and make grandiose statements. They very well may be right, however their argument is wrong. Climate Change is one of my favorite examples of this. Flame on! (Sorry I couldn't resist!)
Also think about Freakanomics.
Perhaps there is also a statistical correlation between the people that would freaking drink 9 cans of coke in a day and those that smoke 20+ cigerates a day, or the fact that those people are more predetermined to be obese which may be causing it, or be more likely to eat other unhealthy foods, of which anyone factor may be the cause of.
There are many possibilities and factors and we are talking about samples and statistics here in a study where these are not controlled environments.