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."
Clearly you don't own any Coca Cola or sugar stocks. If you did, you would know that sugar is totally benign, has no ill effects, and can be consumed in massive, even concentrated quantities in soft drinks with no ill effect whatsoever.
Sugar is just like CO2, totally harmless.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
They don't. They reduce the amount of calories you consume from drinking soda (diet vs. regular), but they stimulate your appetite so you actually end up eating more food when you do eat.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
if you can come up with a legitimate way for me to lose weight without diet and exercise, I will love you forever
Eating doesn't make you fat. Marriage makes you fat.
Just compare the waistlines of your single and married friends, and you will see what I mean.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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.
How the hell else do you get fat? You consume more calories than you burn,
Wrong. You metabolize more calories than you burn, while your body is in a state in which it will store the unused food as fat. But all of this is controlled to a very large extent by factors other than what you eat right now; some of it is controlled by what you've been eating, there appears to be a genetic influence, and there's also the current condition of your gut biota which is also affected by the other two major factors. Remember, poop transplants can make people fatter or skinnier. Once you realize that, it's all a bunch of shit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
...I think your options are pretty much limited to violating the laws of thermodynamics.
I was not aware of this option. Please sign me up for your newsletter.
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
The main purpose of a diet soda is that it doesn't have any sugar, and therefore, no calories either. What defines "diet" isn't regulated, but every diet soda I've seen indeed has less than or equal to one Calorie.
I suspect that it could very well be true that diet soda doesn't help you lose weight, but if so, it isn't the fault of the diet soda that you aren't losing weight. The more calories you consume, the more "full" you feel, and likewise, simply drinking diet soda isn't going to help you shed pounds if you're consuming something else in lieu of those calories.
Let's say for example that as part of your daily routine, instead of drinking a regular soda (about 150 calories) you decide to drink a diet soda, and have a chocolate chip cookie (typically about 150 calories) with it. In this scenario, you're still retaining the same calorie intake, so you aren't going to shed any pounds that you otherwise wouldn't have.
Having said all of the above, indeed you *can* use diet soda as part of your weight loss plan, but at the end of the day your calorie intake must be less than your Basal Metabolic Rate.
Oh and for anybody who wants to know how to lose weight, it's dead simple, just follow this formula:
Nc = F - (Bmr + E)
Where Nc = Net Calories, F = food calories consumed, Bmr = Basal Metabolic Rate, E = Calories burned during exercise.
So long as Nc is less than zero, you're losing weight. How fast you're losing weight depends on how much deficit. One pound of fat is roughly 3600 calories. As a rule of thumb, your food intake shouldn't be less than around 1800 calories per day for males, 1200 for females, and if you go below these figures, your liver slows down your metabolism (aka starvation mode) and you get tired all the time lose weight slower.
Also one thing to remember about calories: They are a total sum of protein, fat, carbohydrates, and alcohol. How much of each you need is debatable, but I've found that getting calories mostly from protein and fat (aka low-carb) works best for me (not to mention, low carb also got rid of my cholesterol problem.)
400?! Amateur. When I switched, I averaged 5 Cokes per day for about 700 calories. The switch to diet 6-odd years ago made an immediate difference with no other marked change in diet. Even 6 years on I'm still about 25 pounds under my pre-diet-Code days.
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
What you're saying is wrong.
There is evidence that diet sodas actually cause weight gain. They are not simply water: the artificial sweeteners have physiological effects, and they are not benign.
While we're still figuring out exactly what those effects are, the main ones that we're aware of now are:
1) They stimulate your appetite.
2) They disrupt your intestinal bacteria.
The general idea is still sound. The problem is that the calorie/kilocalorie values are based on a very average and idealized man
No, the problem is that the calorie/kilocalorie values were derived by setting food on fire . Seriously, I am not making this up. Since mitochondria are not little coalmen shoveling food into furnaces, the whole idea of deriving caloric benefit values by setting food on fire is basically insane. But as the link above explains, today, we don't even do that. We just look up each ingredient in a table, a table which was derived by setting food on fire, and then decide what its caloric content is. So not only does the back of the package not tell you what percentage of the food you're going to metabolize (it can't, since we're all different and we don't actually know that much about it) it also doesn't actually tell you what the caloric content of the food is! (There are numerous other problems with the system; some of them are described in the second link.)
Setting food on fire can be fun, but it's not a very good substitute for actual knowledge of how it will behave in the body.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It isn't as simple as eating fewer calories than you expend.
If I'm hungry and eat a handful of almonds - say 100 calories - the fiber and fat content makes me feel satiated for several hours and signals to my body that I'm full. Craves go down and blood sugar remains in a normal range.
Compare that with a handful of skittles. Also say 100 calories. I get a sugar rush, my blood sugar spikes, the skittles breakdown into energy that isn't used and is immediately stored as fat, and my body gets no signal that it's hunger has been satisfied - leaving to more cravings.
Not all calories are equal to one another. On the surface just eating less than you expend works out, but in practice it's a lot harder to do without changes to the actual diet that's supplying the calories.
No no no, thyroids are mythical.
I assure you thyroid glands are real. When you go to the doctor and he palpates the base of your neck he is checking your thyroid.
If you don't believe in prostate glands either, you're in for a big surprise when your doctor decides to check it.
Oh and for anybody who wants to know how to lose weight, it's dead simple, just follow this formula:
Nc = F - (Bmr + E)
Where Nc = Net Calories, F = food calories consumed, Bmr = Basal Metabolic Rate, E = Calories burned during exercise.
The idea you're expressing - "Eat less exercise more" - is correct but this formula is deeply incomplete. A fat calorie isn't equal to a sugar calorie isn't equal to a carb calorie because the metabolic pathways are entirely different. Even different kinds of each of a given calorie (e.g. sucrose vs glucose sugars) are metabolized differently.
The human body simply doesn't process calories like an LTI system. It's both hysteretic and complexly dependent on what the composition of a meal is. Drinking a soda or pulpless fruit juice on an empty stomach basically dumps the entire sugar content into your bloodstream the moment it reaches your intestines, which sends your liver and metabolism into panic mode and turns a goodly amount of it into fat, but eating a fruit (which contains asstons of sugar) is harmless because the fiber slows bioavailability. Likewise, if you eat a meal after a long fast (meaning all of 5 hours), your metabolism will be in "ermahgerd starving" mode and process it very differently than if you'd snacked a bit in between.
So it's more like
* eat less in general
* eat less at once, more often
* eat more natural/less processed foodstuffs
* exercise more
This is without getting into things like how science has been used to subvert your body's self regulation systems. Greasy, fatty fast foods - by design! - contain just the mix of salts and fat to prevent you from feeling full and satisfied, so you keep eating until your stomach's "oh god, buffer overload" signal gets through. Well, perhaps this just falls under "eat natural" but still.
[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)
I love how people say artificial sweeteners are harmless, but whenever I accidentally ingest one I get a headache, become nauseous, a sharpness around my heart, and almost vomit.
I'm sorry you have a bad reaction to an artificial sweetener, but you should realize that the term "harmless" doesn't mean "nobody can ever have anything bad happen", it means that for normal people it does no harm.
For most people, peanuts are harmless. For most people, a bee sting is an annoyance. For most people, shellfish are a yummy treat.
For most people, aspartame is a harmless sweetener. For people who have phenylketonuria (PKU) it can kill them. They lack an enzyme that processes phenylalanine, an amino acid (building block of proteins) that is part of aspartame, and is also found in higher concentrations in turkey. Should the media report on a regular basis this fact?
For most people, most medications intended to treat some symptom or disease do just that and nothing more. But read the contraindications or side-effect lists and see that some people don't have the same reaction that everyone else does. Does that mean the drug or whatever should be banned? Of course not.
Thanks to a complete failure of the media,
I don't know that it is the media's responsibility to report every bad side-effect that a minority of people experience to some common food additive. They'd be so busy reporting on what affects a minority that the main news would never get covered.