Slashdot Mirror
Coca-Cola To Fund Research That Shifts Blame For Obesity Away From Bad Diets
An anonymous reader writes: The NY Times reports that Coca-Cola is teaming up with influential scientists to support research into fighting obesity through other means than improving diet. They've provided funding to a new nonprofit called the Global Energy Balance Network. Its president said, "Most of the focus in the popular media and in the scientific press is, 'Oh they're eating too much, eating too much, eating too much' — blaming fast food, blaming sugary drinks and so on. And there's really virtually no compelling evidence that that, in fact, is the cause." Health experts say it's an attempt by Coca-cola to deflect criticism of the sugary drinks that are the lifeblood of its business. "This clash over the science of obesity comes in a period of rising efforts to tax sugary drinks, remove them from schools and stop companies from marketing them to children. In the last two decades, consumption of full-calorie sodas by the average American has dropped by 25 percent."
Yesterday on a radio I heard a DJ saying that there was a study showing that diet drinks didn't help people loose weight. So the propaganda is already flowing.
Better known as 318230.
I think its stupid to try and shift blame for obesity from poor diet, but as a fat man, if you can come up with a legitimate way for me to lose weight without diet and exercise, I will love you forever
How the hell else do you get fat? You consume more calories than you burn, your body mass will increase. It's really basic thermodynamics at work here...
=Smidge=
Sure, other things contribute: sedentary lifestyle, long hours sitting at a desk job, low metabolism, even certain genetics; but eating high calorie junk food most certainly contributes significantly. It's a very simple equation of calories in vs. calories spent.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Coca cola to BUY research that serves their corporate interests.
FTFY
So anything that shifts the attention away from that will only help their business of selling detritus. I would say it's an addictive drink, almost as bad as cigarettes.
To maintain healthy weight: Calories In ~= Calories Out
I can already hear the soundbite.
Coca-Cola President: "It's not OUR fault your fat ass can't get up and exercise."
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
Totally unbiased research that should be trusted.
even though my drink of choice is Mountain Dew and Dr Pepper.
Its about time I had a reason to blame something other than myself for my bad habits!
Maybe this is okay to research. I mean, as long as the material that comes out clearly states that it was funded in part by Coca-Cola. It probably won't do much harm. It's good to look at alternatives. Just in case.
It's like clockwork. If I drink one ordinary can of soda, two days later my face id covered in zits, and I wear them for a good two weeks.
I have been told by some that this is impossible, there must be some other cause, etc. It's bullocks.
And it isn't just soda, if I eat a nice big slice of cake, or anything with 40 grams or more of sugar and little-to-no protein, this happens.
When I wanted to lose weight, I reduced the number of calories I was consuming, and I lost weight! Weird, it must be that I changed my "energy balance". Except I didn't change *what* I ate, just how much. I'm not saying it's easy, but if you eat fewer calories than you burn, as a general rule, you'll lose weight.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
A diet isn't inherently bad when you're expending that energy through physical exertion. A power lifter can drink a coke and not have any issue whereas a sedentary programmer whose maximum amount of exertion for the day was climbing into his car not so much.
Calories in / calories out. You want to eat trashy feel good diets, then exert that amount of energy in your day so it won't matter. Otherwise, get your diet in check.
A super secret weight loss tip: Strength training is a far more effective means of losing weight than cardio and way less miserable.
if they haven't already
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
You can always ignore what they have to say. Obviously, calorie intake (and coke sure is high in calories!) makes you fat. However, the body isn't a simple machine. Denying it calories results in a lot of negative reactions which are intentionally designed in to ensure the body keeps amassing calories. Most intelligent doctors know that just telling a fat guy to stop eating so much is worthless advice and just about never works (there's exceptions to every rule). Diets failing is the rule.
If Coke figures out how to get fat people thin without going the diet route (how, well, hell, I don't know!) at least it gives the overweight a fighting chance. As one of the members of that category, if you could slice 100 lbs off me tonight, I imagine I'd have a HELL of a lot more energy for the physical fitness I desire.
Or just keep making fun of fat people and telling them to diet. I mean, it's working pretty well right now, isn't it? I'm sure telling someone who already spends extra money on more calories that their food will cost even more is definitely going to make a big difference!
They say to really know someone you need to walk 1000 miles in their shoes. Well, to really know what it's like to be overweight, you need to be overweight. It's pretty much that simple. If you are, you know exactly what I'm talking about. And if you're one of the few that beat it through the traditional diet and exercise (ie: Sheer willpower) approach, good for you! But you know as well as I do that it sure as hell was harder than stopping smoking or even putting down the drink. Yet society views those as things to offer support, rather than ridicule for.
Sigh. I'm sure someone will just reply to this "LOL FATTY". Whatever. I'm in a taxpayer funded healthcare system. You're paying for not helping.
Just exercise like Michael Phelps and obesity won't be a problem.
And even the occasional hit of weed is okay.
Had a quick google and evidently 1 pint of Coca Cola has a few more calories than...a pint of Guinness!
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
With the recent *cough* revelations that sodium and dietary fat aren't has harmful as we've heard for the past 40+ years, more research into nutrition is probably a good thing. Granted, this "research" will most likely be heavily biased toward specific conclusions, but maybe (fingers crossed) there's, at least, some new information to be gained. Obviously, nutrition is one area where 20th century "science" failed us.
sig: sauer
Remember, your not fat because you eat a bag of cheetos and 2 liters of coke everyday and never leave your house. You're Fat because of North Korea and Iran and you don't believe in the right God.
Corporations have been doing this for ages.
The same professional deniers that insisted there was nothing unhealthy about smoking cigarettes, are now working the Koch brother's PR firm, and insisting that global warming is a hoax.
These scientists also work for, and support: the nuclear industry, Monsanto, and factory farmers.
You might also want to watch "That Sugar Film"
Patrick Moore, a scientist who help found Greenpeace, now works for several corporations.
Here he is promoting the wholesomeness of GMOs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSten18rI9A
Here he claims that rising levels of CO2 are good for the environment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc
Just typical corporate shenanigans.
Sounds like the same thing Global Warming advocates do.
Assuming (that's probably where I fail) that they are merely funding and not buying actual results, then this is a good thing. If they successfully find other ways to combat weight gain - awesome, else, we'll just go back to eating less and exercising.
Find me a new way to enjoy my chocolatey foods!
It's genetics!
It's my metabolism!
It's 100 other excuses that don't require me to eat less or do any exercise!
Sure, they have a very clear motive, and may bury any science that doesn't support their claims. That's bad.
But the idea that diet is the primary cause of obesity is a very intuitive one. There's no lack of studies showing the link, so burying new studies may not have a huge impact. The problem with intuitive ideas is that they're often wrong, or partially right, or ignore the root causes behind them. Research funded by a biased source is not necessarily bad research, and can uncover previously-unknown factors. That's good.
The research does come with a free frogurt, but the frogurt contains refined sugars. Just how bad that is is yet to be determined.
Last post!
They're called motorcycle gangs
A diet isn't inherently bad
Calories in / calories out. You want to eat trashy feel good diets, then exert that amount of energy in your day so it won't matter.
Mister self proclaimed health expert says that you can drink sugar water all day with no bad effects, as long as it's accompanied by exercise!!!
Who is paying you???
Does this fat make me look fat?
It's not that simple for most people. The body prefers a certain caloric intake level. When it does not get its preferred level, the body "complains" loudly in terms of cravings and discomfort.
And over time metabolism will slow down to catch up with the lower intake, so that one still gains weight even though they are eating less. And, still feel like sh8t.
It usually backfires after about 4 years. Very few can maintain that level of discipline to suffer beyond 4 years. Evolution heavily shaped our bodies, genes, and cravings to error on the side of plump.
Who knows, chubbies may better survive the apocalypse, having the last laugh. When nukes are flying, nobody will care about their slim figure.
Table-ized A.I.
No way around it. IF you ask people that have a clue, AKA Doctors, they all will tell you that eating more than 15-30 grams of carbohydrates per meal is bad for you and will cause your body to convert sugars to fat.
so yes, if you are drinking 3-6 cans of soda pop daily, you are making yourself fat. So stop with the Pancakes covered in syrup, the Bagel and Coke. and eat frigging meat and veggies.
and no Potatoes are not veggies, those are carbohydrate bombs.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
They say to really know someone you need to walk 1000 miles in their shoes
If I walked 1000 miles on a regular basis, even in my own shows, I wouldn't be fat anymore.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Too many FAT people is because kids aren't taught self control and FAT adults are terrible role models.
Seriously. I went on Atkins about 10 years ago, *severely* cut back on bread/sugar/rice/pasta/cereal, and lost 50 lbs over a year or so with relatively little fuss. I ate lots of vegetables, with meat/cheese/eggs/cream/butter, etc. It tasted good, I wasn't hungry, and I satisfied sweets cravings with stuff sweetened with sucralose/stevia/sugar alcohols/etc.
Limit your calories per day say 2000 and go for a 30 Min walk or bike ride. You can easily lose 20LB in 4 months. Besides who wouldn’t want to have great cardio and not get winded when picking up a trash can.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
This is absolute Idiocracy....
If you start your research with the goal to prove something, it is bad research.
You should always test your competing hypothesis, otherwise you will disregards the opposing results and you will actually prove what you wanted to prove in the first place.
Exactly like the tobacco industry.
It's sugar, caffeine, and flavor - primarily from natural sources. (Don't tell me about the traces of phosphoric acid; your own stomach acid is almost 100x more acidic). Have a small coffee and an OJ and you'll get more sugar, caffeine, and acid than shotgunning a 12oz Coke.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I have two kids a similar age with similar physical activity levels. One eats a lot more than the other, but stays skinnier. There are other factors at work beyond weight and exercise that affect metabolism. These researchers will have a powerful $$$ motivation to shed light on these other factors, and I say more power to them.
Bad diets do cause obesity. You think someone who drinks nothing but cola all day every day will remain fit? I have a lot of perfect exemple of this around me, women who were thin and suddenly they decided they didn't like water anymore and just drank diet pepsi, because you know "it's diet so it must be good". They are now over 300lb
What could be better than eating all the junk fat-building foods a person wants, doing no exercise, just taking a pill daily to remain fit and thin? So, if Coca-Cola wants to spend billions in finding that pill, most Americans will applaud and continue gorging themselves in hopes that Coke succeeds.
Have a small coffee and an OJ and you'll get more sugar, caffeine, and acid than shotgunning a 12oz Coke.
Comparing one bad thing to another bad thing makes the first bad thing good?
Bullshit. Just look at how healthy and slim americans were in the sixties and seventies. It all started going downhill from the eighties onwards. And I don't think the whole of american society changed overnight. Rather external factors make it so that the american diet changed in worse. And the effects are for all to see. Unfotunately this obesity disease (yes yes some people a tiny minority are naturally obese but let's take them out of the picture) has started to affect Europeans as well.
Every day we reach new levels of cynicism. It is yet another demonstration of the triumph of public relations over scientific fact. It's slowing down the anti pollution efforts, why not give a try here?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Coke (and the likes of McDonalds) sponsor events like the Olympics to promote their product as healthy. It's why their ads always have fit and healthy people playing frisbee in the park or taking their tops off to show sculpted abs or generally engaging in outdoorsy things. They want to sow the seed in minds that they're actually a healthy lifestyle choice.
Of course anyone who thought it through would realise what utter bollocks that is. And the likes of coke wouldn't be fighting laws that limit maximum cup sizes and tax on soft drinks if they had any interest in the health of the population.
That's true... strength training helps... but only so far. If you spend two hours in a gym, you might burn off 900-1400 calories... but if you then consume two slices of cheese pizza (16" or therabouts) you'll have wiped out most if not all of that deficit. After all Micheal Phelps was consuming 10,000+ calories a day while training as a swimmer (which I'm assuming is mostly cardio)... no idea how much strength training he was doing though...
For purposes of weight loss (from my personal experience), I guesstimate that 70% of effective weight loss is due to input control calorie-wise, i.e. a proper diet, and limiting the vast amount of snacking you're continually enticed to do thanks to the incessant bombardment of consumption advertising in the US. In fact I think that is may be entirely possible that an effective diet aid would be to turn off the TV and keep it off!!!
You forgot to blame Obama.
Lying fucking cocksucking pieces of shit. Why do we still allow this? Our health ought not be for sale.
So the fact that I lost 25 lbs in a month has nothing to do with me removing fast food and sugary drinks out of my diet? Fascinating.
Wait, so you can buy scientists and get the results you want and will push your agenda? Man I hope the global warming crowd doesn't hear about this.
But, I found the stat in the summary to be pretty telling... We've already decreased our consumption of sugary drinks by 25% over the last 20 years, and yet we are more obese than ever... Obviously we could just be substituting sugary drinks for some other form of sugar or carb, but I doubt banning or taxing sugary drinks alone will help much given the 20 year history of consuming less sugary drinks...
I'm not saying coke is good for you, just that it seems attacking one form of sugar over all others is a pretty naive approach to diet/obesity management from a policy perspective.
Eliminating it artificially will not make a diet healthy and CocaCola will never be part of a healthy diet unless they completely change their product. Skinny unhealthy people is not a solution to anything.
Said the pussy faggot who's a skinny little bitch by virtue of genetics alone and is likely in terrible fucking shape despite "looking thin".
Until you actually try it. Then when the weight starts dropping after a couple weeks, you wonder why you denied the obvious for so long.
Ok, I'm pretty sure there is, in fact, some compelling evidence that over-indulgence in sugary drinks, fast food, etc do, in fact, contribute to obesity. Especially since you don't really have to partake very much to over-indulge. But assuming there isn't, are they really proposing to prove that one can eat a high-calorie, high-sugar diet without large amounts of exercise to offset it and remain healthy? If so, they're about to make a health and quality of life breakthrough the likes of which hasn't been seen since the development of the vaccine!
Gary Taubes in "Good Calories, Bad Calories" clearly demonstrates that it was common knowledge for centuries that sugars and simple carbohydrates like bread, etc were major contributors to obesity. We've known that insulin is the primary hormone regulating lipogenesis since the 1960s.
We do need more and better nutrition studies that aren't an attempt to build scientific careers or salvage career-defining hypothesis, but we also need to quit ignoring the science we have that doesn't line up with the fat-is-bad, energy-balance-only arguments.
Dietary advice in our guilt-addled Christian culture really has a hard time escaping the orbit of blame and shame, and we keep reinvesting in scientifically dubious arguments about weight because they fit into puritanical, guilt-driven notions that overconsumption is our principal problem and the only path to salvation is through denial and suffering.
So many of the nagging problems of modern civilization (drugs, prostitution, unplanned pregnancy, obesity, poverty, etc) seem to succumb to reflexive, puritanical thinking that the proffered solutions to all of them can be created by doing a find-replace with passages from Christian theology. Solutions that don't align with this kind of thinking are rejected.
All business sponsored studies should be taken with a 5 pound bag of salt.
Obesity = What_you_eat - What_you_burn. Simple. No need for a team of (bribed) PhDs to prove that.
This is stupid not just because they're trying to influence science with money, but because they've got a perfectly reasonable alternative path. Coca-Cola has _two_ popular zero calorie drinks in its main product line, and who knows how many others in all the various other product lines they've accumulated over the years.
Instead of trying to pervert the science, advertise your calorie free drinks! Something along the lines of "we believe in your right to chose your own drinks, be we encourage you to try Diet Coke or Coke Zero to improve your health!" (Clearly i wasn't cut out to be a marketing guy, but you get the idea.)
And yes, i know there is plenty of research showing that diet drinks are not a panacea of health, but i still think they're better than consuming an equal amount of the sugary equivalent.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
But -- assuming you are not so crass as to drink sweetened orange juice -- some of that fructose in the orange juice will be metabolised much slower because of the presence of fibre. And you get vitamin C.
You're also probably getting various valuable antioxidants from the coffee. There's evidence coffee contains compounds that inhibit type 2 diabetes, offers some protection to the liver, etc.
Just don't put cream in it.
Caffeine is kind of irrelevant.
There is no way you're going to get fatties off their asses.
To be fair, there's very little scientific evidence that GMO is a significant risk. Nature has been messing with genes since life begun and there's no evidence that human fiddling is more risky than nature's fiddling; barring an intentional introduction of genetic malware; but ANY technology can be abused. I do hope the GMO modifications are carefully monitored by independent inspectors to prevent sinister or risky changes.
In short, I'm not against GMO's, I'm just against unregulated GMO's. It's potentially a great technology.
Table-ized A.I.
CocaCola should have funded social studies instead, whole 'fat shaming' avenue would be a lot more productive than trying to misinterpret peer-reviewed hard science. With Social Sciences any nonsense could be published, given you insert enough right-think buzz words into your papers. For example the paper titled "The fat shaming of disadvantaged minorities by the patriarchy over consumption of carbonated beverages" is guaranteed to get published no matter what the conclusions and methods are. As long as introduction cites Gloria Steinem.
It doesn't make sugar and caffeine less addictive...
I think the biggest problem with Coke is not what's inside. It is what is *not* inside. It will give you sugar without all the other things associated with it. As a result, you will need to eat more to get what your body is missing. It basically adds extra sugar to your normal diet.
Food is primarily the problem. Empty calories that end up making you just want to eat more empty calories are indefensible. Modern food is typically a simple carb or protein (processed chicken breast in some form) with some compounds added back in to make them palatable.
Everything in moderation.
Hindu's seem the skinniest. Perhaps I should try Hinduism to get rid of my gut. Hmm, can I outsource that?
Table-ized A.I.
when it's fat fucking americans do the world a favour and force feed them as much cola as possible. The worlds iq will go up due to darwinism.
Coffee is considered acceptable and orange juice is considered healthy. Most people who want to attack soda would immediately sign on for guzzling orange juice as a healthy alternative.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
... They won't be able to prove it because science doesn't care Who funds it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A common, but simple error. Muscle weighs more than fat. If you strength train, your muscles will constantly be repairing themselves well after you've done strength training. This repairing burns far more calories than the initial 900-1400. It will be far more than that.
Phelps spent at a minimum of 5-6 hours in a pool a day. His routine (assuming what is listed is correct) highlights all of the stuff he does http://workoutinfoguru.com/mic... If you're spending 5-6 hours swimming then you need to consume 10,000+ calories. Looking at Phelps diet he's eating a lot of grains, an energy drink, and could most definitely eat those pizzas you're referring to.
He also incorporate compound lifts into his training. Compound lifts include the bench, pull ups, push ups (really just a bench), squats, and deadlifts. These work the most muscles in your body and give you the most bang for your buck.
Word of advice for you to help speed up your fat loss. Stop looking at your overall "weight" and saying I need to lose X. Weight is a cumulative number that fails to show the full picture. Instead, find out what your body fat percentage is. This number is what you really need to focus on and bring down. Muscle is infinitely more attractive than adipose tissue.
Next eat a diet high in protein. Pick either animal fats or carbohydrates. If you pick both you will get fat. One of the other. If you lack self control, consider trying the paleo diet. This will force you onto a high protein and fat diet while lowering your carb intake.
Good luck, personal fitness is a goal that every one should esteem to be the best at. People instinctively follow those who are in better shape.
I've met plenty of fat liberal atheists.
You mean the same way the global warming / climate change, (whatever they're calling it these days) proponents fund only studies that will result in the desired outcome?
Funny
I just had this conversation the other day with friends that if they want to start taxing E-Cigs because they're addictive with the potential to ham individuals due to overuse/abuse.... you might as well tax/ban Caffeine and Refined sugar.
Sugar! It's the OTHER white powder.
We have a food pyramid instead of four equal food groups.
Turns out they've gone back to the old food group pie chart.
Unless you have a causal mechanism and argument, generated through the scientific method...
Though the rest of the summary (haven't RTFA, whadda I look like some kinda guy who's not lazy) sounds like this is obvious funding of bad science by Coca-Cola to discredit the obvious link between diet and weight, the quoted phrase "research into fighting obesity through other means than improving diet" sounds like something that would in fact be absolutely wonderful if there's any hope of it actually paying off.
Isn't that exactly what we'd all want? To be able to eat whatever we like and not get fat? Unless you're some kind of sanctimonious dietary morality police and think eating other than your holy chosen diet is a vice or a sin (rather than just bad for the health of the person doing it, and therefore nobody's business but theirs), it would be absolutely wonderful if someone invented some kind of weight-regulating something-or-other that didn't require dieting.
If that's what Coke's actually researching -- and if there's any hope of it actually panning out -- then that's great. If they're just trying to fund bad science to claim that (absent some such new invention) excess sugar already doesn't really make you fat, then boo on them of course. But if they're looking to invent some new technology to make that the case, rather than fraudulently trying to convince us that it's already the case, then hurray! Go Coke!
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Copious levels of refined sugar is possibly the most detrimental aspect of the shitty Western diet, moreso than isolated fats.
Fibre is woefully outmatched in this instance. This would be true were one consuming an orange, not orange juice. Fibre reduces the level of insulin needed to process sugars.
Diets don't really do sh*t. Your body adjusts to the lesser calorie intake and you still get FAT! People (especially in the US) need to realize that the only sure fire way to lose weight is to burn off the calories you intake through exercise and moving around. Biking, walking a few miles, lifting weights, etc.!
Don't be a lazy as$, get up and do something!
[Sugar - The bitter truth by Dr Robert H. Lustig, University of California Television (UCTV)] https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [Warning: 90 minutes]
This is the best math I've seen about sugar, coca-cola, energy drinks and obesity.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
Look, it's BLATANTLY obvious that a company like Coca Cola would have biased reasons for funding research into alternate theories about weight gain/loss. But ultimately, it's more important how that research is actually conducted. If the scientists involved really do find out some more about the reasons "exercise + diet" don't yield lasting results that work equally well across the board for everybody following those regimens, that might have some value - no matter WHO paid for the studies.
I've said for years that just from what I've observed, people appear to have their own personal "set point" for where their body wants their weight to be. Even people trying to gain weight because they have a "fat fetish" will talk about hitting a plateau, where they find it really difficult to gain any more weight beyond that point. And if they manage to "break through" that point, they tend to hit another one at a certain larger size, later on. Sustained weight loss is clearly not as simple as taking in fewer calories or exercising to burn more of them in a given time period. (There's even arguably some evidence, based on animal studies, that exercising to keep one's metabolism higher and stay slimmer shortens your lifespan in the long run.) And I know *so* many people who tried various diets, only to get results for 4 months or so, only to have it fizzle out. (Atkins was a great example.) I think the body adapts to the dietary changes you try to make to "short" it a certain number of calories.
I always wonder about this, because honestly, I can't find too many things I really like to drink very much. Growing up, I had a glass of milk with every lunch and dinner, because that's what my parents were convinced was the only healthy thing to drink with meals. As an adult today, I almost never want a glass of it. Just burnt out on it completely.
I'll occasionally drink a glass of apple or grape juice, or maybe pineapple or cranberry juice -- but I usually don't find them all that satisfying. They're good with a breakfast, but little else.
Thinking maybe I was just missing the carbonation, I tried all kinds of different carbonated/fizzy bottled water drinks and seltzers, but found they ranged from gross to just "meh...."
I never liked tea or iced tea, so those are right out the window ... and I don't do coffee either, unless it's a mocha or flavored latte. And I imagine the sugar and calories in those isn't so much better off than a soda.
Ice water is fine, and I drink some of that. But as it has no flavor, it's, well.... boring. And drinks like vitamin water actually upset my stomach. I think they have too many added minerals, vitamins and what-not and the concentration bothers it?
Science isn't right or wrong if someone backs it. Lets be frank here... the f'ing NAZIs did some very solid science.
Science isn't about your petty factions or your morality. Its about truth and falsehood.
Now is there a clear conflict of interest here with Coca-Cola having a vested interest in people believing that their sugar water is the best thing ever?
Yes. Obvious conflict of interest noted.
However, the scientists also have a conflict of interest here in that they're getting funded by people with this known bias.
Okay...
But is that uncommon? How many studies are funded by interest groups? How many studies are funded by government agencies with declared desired outcomes?
Pick the field... whomever is giving you the money probably would prefer one sort of outcome rather than another. And it is known that some grants are given on a quid pro quo basis... that is... there is an understanding that the study MUST support a given position or further grants will not happen.
Unethical? Of course. However, more common than most people would like to admit.
It is incumbent upon the community of scientists... all of them... to audit such things. True, you can bribe a lot of them but you generally can't bribe all of them.
And even then... science is not a democracy. That one person you didn't bribe can rip your fucking bullshit to shreds.
So where am I going with this? Let Coca Cola make their study. I don't see how it hurts anything. If their study is crap then make an argument on the basis of the science as to why it is crap.
Simply dismissing it out of hand on the basis that it is funded by the sugar water merchants is a logical fallacy.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Remember, your not fat because you eat a bag of cheetos and 2 liters of coke everyday and never leave your house. You're Fat because of North Korea and Iran and you don't believe in the right God.
PP:
I've met plenty of fat liberal atheists.
It's like you're trying to make IMightB's point for them...
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
HFCS = Fatty Liver Disease, YAY SCIENCE. GTFO.
1 soda a day made from pure sugar cane, is fine, as long as your do at least 30 mins total exercise, walking to school, walking stairs, etc counts towards that.
Eat less, move more. It is that simple. Anyone that tell you otherwise is lying. If you have health issues this simply solution may not apply but in general works really well.
WTF?
Disingenuous and not at all clever.
A diet isn't inherently bad when you're expending that energy through physical exertion.
This is true in one sense; untrue in most others.
It's absolutely true that if a person's energy intake is perfectly balanced with his energy output, that he won't gain weight -- or at least not much. Your body composition might be changing a little bit so your weight might not be 100% stable, but let's say this is true as a first approximation. The thing is, a human body isn't an insulated laboratory reactor; it has interfaces to the outside world that take in and expel energy and matter. The problem with sugary drinks is that in absence of fiber, protein and fat is that they derange the systems that are supposed to regulate your calorie intake and output.
If you drink a 20 oz Coke for lunch your blood sugar levels will rise rapidly, unless you immediately run for a mile and a half (roughly what it'd take an average person to run off 140 calories). Since your endocrine system tries to keep blood sugar in a very narrow range it will immediately begin storing that excess sugar as fat. Because the sugar syrup you just consumed enters the bloodstream with unnatural rapidity, your body will overshoot and you'll very soon experience *low* blood sugar -- which makes you hungry and irritable. This explains why people who are gaining weight are eating more calories than they need BUT are feeling hungry.
Contrast this with eating, say, 20 cups of raw spinach. If you can manage to choke it down, that much spinach has exactly as many calories (140) as the soda, and what's more those calories are almost entirely carbohydrates -- just like the soda. But you aren't going to be hungry for a long, long time. That's because the carbohydrates in the spinach are locked up in plant tissues that take a long time to digest, so they enter the bloodstream very gradually.
The "calorie is a calorie" hypothesis is based on a gross misapplication of thermodynamic theory to the human body. The "calorie" figures in food are determined by burning a measured quantity of food inside a calorimeter. For a calorimeter it's absolutely true that a "calorie is a calorie"; that's because a calorimeter isn't a self-regulating system which manages its exchange of matter and energy with the outside world by getting hungry and tired. A human body is.
According to the "calorie is a calorie" hypothesis, it's worse to eat two hard boiled eggs for lunch than it is to drink a coke, because the eggs have 16 more calories. That's obviously ridiculous.
Drinking a coke instead of eating real food is like putting gasoline in a diesel engine. A scientific sounding argument could be made that you should get more power out of your diesel engine that way: gasoline and diesel fuel are both liquid hydrocarbon fuels, and gasoline has a higher energy content per volume than diesel. This of course is only convincing if you have no idea of how a diesel engine works.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Researchers are paid to come up with results that please those that fund them. News at 11!
Just see global warming...
The two (known, textbook) failures of capitalism are the "externality" and the "monopoly".
Ironic it is, that CC is trying to use one to enforce the other. The proper purpose of government in a capitalist economy is to minimize monopoly and externality.
I wonder if the political machinery emphasis on heath is enabling candidates to extract value from CC in exchange for funding elections. Is this just a way to politically blackmail money from CC?
There is very much a blame the victim attitude with regard to obesity and fitness.
Honestly the most common factor regarding diet is slowing metabolisms as we age it seems like the same pattern for most (white males, but the same pattern can be adjusted a little and suddenly fit AA Males and with different adjustments females). Suddenly the exact same diet and activity level we've had our whole life results in getting fat. Mid 20's you stop eating entire chocolate cakes and scarfing entire pizzas every day teenage boy style and start paying more attention to your diet. Then mid 30's that stops being enough and suddenly have to intentionally focus on calories all the time and go out of your way to exercise. Then you have to make a choice, in your late 30's to early 40's you can either go full on fitness nut or deal with a few extra pounds being part of life. From what I've seen those who are able to keep up that level of effort for the rest of their life are statistical noise and most crash by 50-55. Then in your late 60's some sort of wasting syndrome sets in and you magically stop eating much and your body melts off weight by 70 almost nobody is fat anymore.
But there are exceptions, they run in to the same problems but have bigger issues early on. I knew someone in high school who participated in and excelled in three sports, was constantly on a calorie restriction diet, and had a higher body fat percentage than average. While the average person of the same age does none of those things and eats literally anything they want and almost all of it garbage.
I know another female in her 30's who lifts heavy 3x a week, in addition to a 2-3hrs of cardio and plyometrics 3x a week. She eats less than 100 calories over what is calculated for her height/weight at a normal activity level and dramatically less than at highly active level but her BF never drops outside a fairly consistent yo-yo swing. You could say that with her high activity level she is cutting too much and the high calorie deficit despite all that metabolism boosting activity her body is cutting its burn rate (while still successfully allowing lift gains and progressing sports performance) but at some point physics has to kick in, she is expending more than she is taking in according to science. When is that? Because it certainly seems to be measured in multiples of years...
At some point, someone does need to throw out the pile of garbage that is our understanding of food, energy, and exercise and start from scratch. There is obviously some historical bad science at the core of our understanding that is used in calorie measurement or burn, etc that is used as a fundamental constant in taking measurements or calibrating equipment or the like in the modern age. That or we are missing some huge factor.
We need a different benchmark. Observe teenage males without altering their diets, choose the one with the highest combined matrix of high calorie intake and strength which does not correlate to intentional fitness or activity level (without any intentional alteration of conditions). Assume that's how everyone should function and can function and if they aren't find out what is broken that is causing them to need fewer calories and/or more exercise and fix that. Do the same for females. Only when that baseline is achieved do we recommend altering diet/exercise.
It's not high sugar, high fat foods, it's the weak willed that can't stop consuming them.
We ALL (in the US) have fatty, sugary foods easily available.
SOME (ok, many) of us are obese.
Ergo, the presence/availability of sugary/fatty foods is NOT the cause of obesity.
-Styopa
Those you cited do not make you metabolize MORE calories than you consume. In other word if you consume 4000 , some people may get 3000 out of it, some less some more, but never more than 4000. So in effect it STILL is about eating fare more than you need and taking the bad habits of it. That is where the thermodynamic comes in : you cannot get more calories (usage + metabolism) than what you eat. Furthermore I am seriously doubting that the majority of people have metabolism problem. Far more likely they do the same as I do : eat too much.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Calories in and calories out is a bunch of BS. I drank zero calorie diet soda like water and only had a 1200-1500 calorie a day consumption. I should have been losing weight.
If you were just sitting on your as that much then it's possible that 1500 calories is all that you really needed. The 2000 Cal/day average is not based on the extremely sedentary.
Sounds like big tobacco v2.0
They also funded research to prove it was anything BUT their product causing lung cancer.
Seriously... I drink pop maybe 2-3 times a year. How's that as an alternative? I'm not saying drinkers are to blame but since I cut my pop, everytime I drink it, it just taste like syrup.
I don't know all the details about the composition of soda or if/how the water in soda is different from normal water, but I do know a few basic facts.
People often like to forget that we are mostly composed of water (55%-75%). Sodas (diet and non-diet) are worse at hydrating you than plain water. Learned this in basic wilderness survival, drink water not soda. Soda won't help someone who is severely dehydrated. That's not to say it won't hydrate you, it will, but it's not as good as water alone. You could easily lose 5-15 pounds in a day through dehydration. Go without drinking a normal amount of water for a few days and you'll likely notice a drop in weight, along with a bunch of other bad side effects (From personal experience, I wouldn't recommend it as a diet option).
Additionally, water helps you digest food and remove waste from your body. I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure that could have an effect on weight loss.
Not trying to pick sides in this argument, just saying that water intake is important to consider when measuring weight loss, and that minor changes in weight are likely due to dehydration, especially in the short term.
The idea that you would manipulate the people in your country, knowing it will cause illness, just so you can get yours...
Orange juice is considered healthy by whom? Juice is mostly a fruit's sugar without the fruit's fiber. Why not eat an orange and drink a glass of water instead?
The idea that fruit juice is nasty, sugary garbage is relatively new. Up until around 2009, people were told constantly that fruit juice is just about the healthiest thing around, packed with vitamins and minerals, great for your kids and an excellent way to keep proper nutrition in adults.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Sugar + Phosphoric Acid = diabetes in a bottle. You are better drinking a home brewed ice tea with lemon / no sugar. Trust me .. I know. I've been borderline diabetic for a few years. It's the lifestyle of a Systems Engineer. When I was younger I performed many late night firmware updates to midrange servers and SAN hardware. What did I do to stay awake ? I did the Dew in mass quantities.. 2 litre bottles..Coca-Cola..
Bottom line. I'm glad I'm married and have a wife that made sure I went for my yearly physicals. Now.. no more soda for me. I only drink brewed ice tea, coffee,
ice coffee (no sugar). Grilled salmon, steak tips.. nor much bread.
Pretty much close to normal. Processed foods and sugary drinks are making a lot of people sick.
Still trying to blame everyone but yourselves. They are partially right, diet is not the major reason you fatass shitchunks can't waddle your way back to the sea where you belong - it's because YOU'RE INACTIVE LAZY GARBAGE. It's not the sugar. It's not the 4 cheeseburgers you ate. It's the fact that you're putting more calories in to your shitpile of a body than you're using. Even if you stopped consuming sugar entirely most of you worthless fucks would never drop an ounce of weight.
The french routinely eat as many or more calories as Americans (google "the french paradox"), and yet they're not all bloated pieces of shit. Why? They have active lifestyles. They exercise regularly. So go fuck yourselves you useless cunts. You're a blob because of your choices.
...spread some money around and you can change nearly universal consensus on climate change, why not go after nutrition science. Stockholders need to be protected.
To be fair Coca-Cola make more money selling water than sugary drink's - but come on. The reality is that 99% of the population will buy into whatever pseudo science Coca-Cola serves up. And as a result obesity problems will continue.
Someone over at Coca-Cola obviously fell for the "Chocolates Good For You" and now want in on the action, we'll probably find out in a year or so that Coca-Cola has decided to put Cocaine back in the Coca-Cola as it gives you a little sprite to work off those excess sugars, and anyone drinking the newer (old) recipe losses their access weight in weeks.
When I used to lift weights, I had to eat 5,000kcals a day to maintain my weight of 180lbs.
Quit drinking sodas ( and all sugar based drinks ) for a period of one month and note what it does for your weight.
Once you experience it for yourself, you'll never drink another one.
They can throw around all the propaganda they want and it won't make any difference.
Calories in and calories out is a bunch of BS.
I find it interesting that in any discussions about diet there are always people like you that believe that their body is some kind of moto-continuum, where the delta energy stored plus the used energy is somehow greater than the energy input. I guess many people assume the laws of thermodynamics are just "suggestions of thermodynamics" that you don't really need to follow.
And remember, you're not thin because of a good diet, you're thin because your gut flora help you literally poop out the excess Calories you consume.
Most people like Coke and have nothing against Coca Cola corporation. They know Coke has sugar, and sugar makes them fat. They know it's up to them to consume it in moderation and if they don't then they accept the consequences.
So for Coke to do an RJ Reynolds and try and pretend uhhhhhh sugar does NOT make you fat it insults the intelligence of their customers and begs Government to say 'they have gone too far' and to step in and regulate. When that happens Coke, remember you started it.
Oh please. This is more of the same, someone deflecting blame for their own poor behaviour. "dangerous to the human body"? Give me a break - it's sugar. Of course overconsuming anything is bad for you. Hell drinking enough water will kill you.
If you sat in front of a monitor all day, why on earth would you expect to lose weight from 1200-1500 calories? Your metabolism will slow to a grind and it's not surprising at all you gained weight.
"poisoning myself" and "addicted to it" - get over yourself. Your own poor diet and exercise choices, nothing more.
Well, he was a fat child.
Amphetamines are a much better (and cheaper) way to stay focused for long periods of time, and also lose weight, as they suppres the appetite.
I'd like to see Coca Cola prosecuted for wilfully lying to the public like this, all to try to increase their profits. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
And you failed basic English. :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
a conclusion? Is that how research works?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I like how he qualifies it as "there's virtually no compelling evidence"
So, there's plenty of evidence, and at least some of it is compelling I guess.
But let's not focus on that, because that makes us look bad.
This kind of thing happens all the time now. No science, just PR and a few Hollywood bimbos to front your message.
Al Gore and his VC friends have hijacked the Global Warming debate to create a carbon trading platform. That platform would generate billions in profit for the VCs. It is all about manipulating the message.
Hey buddy, you'd better watch your mouth! It sounds like your dangerously close to accuse me of being a Liberal.
Let me tell you nothing could be further from the truth! I used to donate to the IRA back when they were a decent, god-fearing group, blowing up building and heathens and shit.
I can't stand all these fuckin gubment regulations choking the ability of free market corps to buy elections and give their deserving CEOs well deserved 9 figure bonuses for shipping my job over to china. As long as I can put ramen and Twinkies on my trailer park FEMA trailer table, I'm happy.
And fuck the ACA and environment, God told me that I should be able to pop out 20 to 40 state supported flipper kids before my 6yo wife dies in childbirth or hits menopause.
As long as I'm free to open carry who the fuck cares that a couple of nutjobs a year legally buy some guns and kill a couple a dozen women and children (they're probably godamn liberals and deserve it anyway)
I can't stand that faggot Kenyan darkie muslim libral president we got now. You know the one that passed the republican health care plan, the wars for military iindustrial wefare state going. And Guantanamo open.
Fuck liberals!
Ohh Monday night Rehabilitation is on. I love rehabilitation!
Trump16!!
America fuck yeah!
And its not my fault! Every thing I learned about English and grammar I learned on slashdot and by auto correct
Look, off-hand, I do not believe that Corn Syrup is the problem. I believe that our heavy use of anti-biotics are shifting our intestinal flora, which is leading to different products being produced by them.
I suspect that if Coke will put some effort into this, they can solve this issue and make it so that they are not the ones to blame. Or possibly make it to shift to a different flora to process the drink differently.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I used to work at a chicken wing restaurant. I ate fried foods every meal and consumed over 4000 calories a day. I guzzled MtDew and sweat tea. I also worked hard with no breaks and lived a very active lifestyle being a semi-pro skateboarder. I skated more hours a week than I worked. I know I didn't have the best diet but being so active, I weighed 170lbs at 6'2". That's skinny for that height. I could fit into a size 28 pants, 26 is i drank coffee before 8am. Most people my height are 34-38 and 190-200lbs. So I agree that it's not soda making kids fat. It's probably the whole "sit inside on a television or computer playing games and not being active" thing that is making kids fat. Not soda. Granted diet is a big part of being fat... If you burn 5000 calories a day from being super active in your life.... Versus burning 500 with your thumbs and heavy breathing... Need I say more?
Given the following facts, how can you can argue that rising CO2 is bad for the environment?
* During the vast majority of Earth's history, there were no polar ice caps at all. The only reason our planet currently has ice caps is because we are still emerging from the most recent ice age. When the earth is in its "more normal" state of having no permanent ice, sea level is about 610 feet (186 meters) higher than it was 20,000 years ago, and 210 feet (64 meters) higher than it is today.
* When Antarctica iced up there was a large-scale extinction event. The creation of the Antarctic ice cap was NOT good for life.
* "Millions of years ago, Antarctica was warmer and much wetter, and supported the Antarctic flora, including forests of podocarps and southern beech." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) "During the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event about 34 million years ago, CO2 levels have been found to be about 760 ppm and had been decreasing from earlier levels in the thousands of ppm." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )
* So there you have it: when life was thriving, the CO2 level was thousands of parts per million. The CO2 level in June 2015 (as humans are well along in the process of transitioning away from fossil fuels): 402 parts per million
* Also keep in mind that every species that's alive today, including polar bears, survived the comings and goings of dozens of ice ages.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
In their defense they said *enough* exercise - to put that in perspective most people burn 100-130 Calories when running a mile (70-90 when walking) While the average 12-oz cola is somewhere in the 120-150 Calorie range. That's a lot of exercise, I can't think of many people who do the equivalent of running the 7+ miles required for every six pack they drink.
And I would suspect that if they were doing that exercise while drinking, so that the sugar was being consumed as fast as it was being digested, then there would be minimal secondary effects as well. Otherwise... well I seem to remember that frequent extreme sugar/insulin spikes tend to be a major contributing factor to diabetes.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
He's the best manure salesman I know. Well until Obama is out of office. Nobody is a better manure salesman than he is. Nobody.
What crap. How dare Coke do that. No doubt about it. I've lost over 100 Lbs. Eating is the cause of gain and loss depending on what you eat and don't eat.
Let me address your comment part by part:
Your body burns more calories in total regardless if you get out of bed, than hours and hours of working out. It takes calories to just run the body alone.
OK, that part is right and I have to agree with you. Unless you are a professional athlete, the amount of extra Calories you burn by going to the gym a few hours is negligible compared to the general amount necessary to just maintain bodily functions 24/7. Our society vastly overstate the weight loss that can be achieved by exercising. (General note for everyone: I'm not saying that you shouldn't exercise, exercising brings many many other health benefits and is linked to far greater life expectancy, it just won't make you lose weight).
Only sugars in the blood is turned to fat. No sugars no fat. Pretty simple.
That is technically partially right, but in fact wrong. It is true that only sugars (and glucose) can be "turned" into fat, but you ignore two facts:
1. Fats are not "turned" into fat because they are already fat. In fact, calories ingested as fats are the most easily stored.
2. Apart from fats, anything else with a high caloric content (most notable example are carbohydrates) is turned into sugars (or glucose), so by transitivity all those are also turned into fats.
If I ate 10K calories of just fiber and fat marbled steaks alone and stayed in bed all day, I would not get fat.
That is simply not true, if you ate 10K Calories you would get fat, regardless of the composition of such a diet (unless in extreme cases like a person having a serious disease making them unable to metabolize a specific molecule and then proceeding to eat only that molecule). You can get away with ingesting more calories than you need depending on the composition of those calories (protein rich like steaks, instead of spoons of refined sugar), but the effect is small, maybe hundreds of Cals, not 10K.
If I eat just 1000 calories of carrots and then a liter of zero calorie diet soda, I'd get fat.
If you ingest only 1000 Calories plus zero soda you will not get fat (although I can't guaranty you will not die of a heart condition due to all the sodium on the soda). As I said before, the body is not a moto-continuum, it doesn't create energy from nothing.
So although there is a very small possibility of not getting fat while ingesting a lot of calories, there is absolutely zero chance of magically getting fat while eating less calories than your daily expenditure, the laws of thermodynamics simply won't allow it.