Slashdot Mirror


The Decline of 'Big Soda': Is Drinking Soda the New Smoking?

HughPickens.com writes: Margot Sanger-Katz reports in the NYT that soda consumption is experiencing a serious and sustained decline as sales of full-calorie soda in the United States have plummeted by more than 25 percent over the past twenty years. Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they are actively trying to avoid the drinks that have been a mainstay of American culture but bottled water is now on track to overtake soda as the largest beverage category in two years. The changing patterns of soda drinking appear to come thanks, in part, to a loud campaign to eradicate sodas. School cafeterias and vending machines no longer contain regular sodas. Many workplaces and government offices have similarly prohibited their sale.

For many public health advocates, soda has become the new tobacco — a toxic product to be banned, taxed and stigmatized. "There will always be soda, but I think the era of it being acceptable for kids to drink soda all day long is passing, slowly," says Marion Nestle. "In some socioeconomic groups, it's over." Soda represents nearly 25% of the U.S. beverage market and its massive scale have guaranteed profit margins for decades. Historically, beverage preferences are set in adolescence, the first time that most people begin choosing and buying a favorite brand. But the declines in soda drinking appear to be sharpest among young Americans. "Kids these days are growing up with all of these other options, and there are some parents who say, 'I really want my kids to drink juice or a bottled water,' " says Gary A. Hemphill. "If kids grow up without carbonated soft drinks, the likelihood that they are going to grow up and, when they are 35, start drinking is very low."

387 of 570 comments (clear)

  1. GOOD GRIEF! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Informative

    bottled water is now on track to overtake soda as the largest beverage category in two years.

    Everyone should note that for the most part bottled water is just "tap water" that has been filtered. At $1 plus a bottle (plus the almost always not recycled plastic bottle), why don't people just get a Britta filter for home or office? Filtered tap water is now more expensive than soda!

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to mention it's bottled by the same companies like Pepsico and Coke that make soda. So if people keep drinking water these companies have nothing to worry about.

      We should make them worry and stop buying bottled water. Not only are you flushing your money down the toilet, but getting all those empty bottles out of our waste stream would be a great benefit for all of us.

    2. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Along with that, I think somebody should point out that fuit juice is almost as bad as soda. Sure it contains a small dose of nourishment absent from soda, but the amount of sugar in it just isn't worth it and can contribute to obesidy, fatty liver, cholesterol, and other problems just as bad as soda does.

    3. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by rasmusbr · · Score: 2

      It's often filtered, carbonated and flavored with various fruit flavors, which by the way usually contain small amounts of sugar - something to be aware of if you're on a strict diet. The only thing it's missing is caffeine. I'm sure they'll get around to that if there is sufficient demand for it.

      I quit my Coca Cola habit about 12 years ago and haven't looked back.

    4. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Informative

      Along with that, I think somebody should point out that fuit juice is almost as bad as soda. Sure it contains a small dose of nourishment absent from soda, but the amount of sugar in it just isn't worth it and can contribute to obesidy, fatty liver, cholesterol, and other problems just as bad as soda does.

      This is a critical part of the discussion too. Just because it says "100% juice" doesn't mean it's very good for you. A lot of "100% juice" involves blends of the sweetest possible fruit juices with the highest sugar content. (This is often most true of juices that have been highly advertised for some sort of "antioxidant" properties or whatever -- that cranberry or pomegranate "100% juice" drink is probably mostly a bunch of super-sweet grape or apple juice or whatever with a sprinkling of the juice that's too sour for most people to find palatable.)

      If you want to eat fruit, well -- eat fruit. The fiber is generally good for digestion and for regulating metabolic pathways, rather than just getting a glass full of colored sugar water with a couple vitamins in it. Also -- guess what? If you drink less sweet drinks (including fruit juice), you'll often crave less sweet drinks in the future... which probably means you'll consume fewer nearly-empty calories in drinks.

    5. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

      I like my fruit juice pulpy. With enough pulp that you can hold it in your hand without your hand getting damp, and consume it by taking bites out of it.

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    6. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

      To put things into perspective, that filtered bottle of tap water is more expensive than gasoline...by a fairly wide margin.

    7. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by dwywit · · Score: 1

      It's also possible to read the ingredients list and make your decision that way. You don't have to do it every time, just identify the brands that say things like "no added sugar", "no added flavour" (Why the hell do they feel the need to add flavour to OJ?), "unfiltered" or "with pulp", and try to avoid the ones that use "reconstituted" juice.

      It's important to exercise your options as a consumer - if you keep choosing added flavour/added sugar etc, they'll keep making it.

      A small grocery shop in town has just installed a commercial juicer. He charges a lot, but it's pure juice and no additives.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    8. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      People generally pay less than $1 for a bottle of water. They get it at the grovery store where it's ten to twenty cents, not at 7-11.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    9. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's also possible to read the ingredients list and make your decision that way. You don't have to do it every time, just identify the brands that say things like "no added sugar"...

      Actually NO -- that no longer works. Companies who try to sell you "healthy" foods want to lie to you.

      There are all sorts of things that are basically pure sugar that many companies are trying to add into products with "no added sugar."

      One of my favorite examples is Chobani's "natural" greek yogurt, with "no added sugar," but which contains large amounts of "evaporated cane juice" (which is... well, a very slightly different processing method to make SUGAR). There have been class action lawsuits over this, but judges have thrown them out.

      I mean, it's "juice," so "evaporated cane juice" must be good for you, right? Also on the list of fun ways for companies to say "sugar" in another way on "natural, no sugar added" foods -- "brown rice syrup" or "honey" or "agave nectar." Wow, it's made with "brown rice" -- must be good for me! "Nectar" -- wow, that's like a good fruit juice, no?

      No matter that these things are basically 97%+ sugar and the only reason they are added to anything is as a substitute for sugar so that businesses can claim "no sugar added" on their labels and sound "healthier."

      Just to be clear -- most flavors of Chobani yogurt contains more sugar per ounce than Coca Cola. That's what a "no sugar added" label gets you these days.

    10. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by mlts · · Score: 1

      What I have wondered about is something plain and simple:

      Canned water. Yes, cans are not perfect, but they are completely recyclable, and can store water indefinitely. Pretty much what Anheuser Busch did for a day for Texas flood victims, but a constant product [1].

      Costs per item would be cheaper than soda water, as all that is needed is filtered tap water.

      For an added bonus, add a 5-10 cent deposit onto each can. That will pretty much ensure they come back.

      [1]: One could always make a joke about it not being a change from their beers, but what they did was a good thing, regardless.

    11. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      It turns out that if you take fruit juice, filter out all of the colors and flavors, then evaporate a bunch of the water, you end up with water with a sugar concentration similar to what you find in soda, except that product labeling laws allow you to sell it as "100% juice".

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    12. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by jonwil · · Score: 1

      The other factor is that a lot of the bottled water brands (at least here in Australia) are made by the same companies (such as Coca-Cola) who make the sodas.

    13. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Oh, it still works just fine for people who read the labels. If you don't understand what evaporated cane juice is, then don't buy products that contain it. Simple simple. If you don't know what syrup is, or if it is something that you eat, then be on the safe side and don't eat it. Easy as home-baked apple pie. Which is either brain-dead simple, or unattainably hard, depending on if you can comprehend the recipe and the ordering of the steps.

    14. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Everyone should note that for the most part bottled water is just "tap water" that has been filtered. At $1 plus a bottle (plus the almost always not recycled plastic bottle), why don't people just get a Britta filter for home or office? Filtered tap water is now more expensive than soda!

      I'm happy to see you have a slightly better understanding than most of the people I hear complaining about this. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard that brands like Dasani, Aquafinia, and Smartwater are "just tap water". That's akin to someone saying, "why are you putting gasoline in your car when you can buy a barrel of crude oil for so much less?".

      Now that being said, a Brita filter is simply carbon filtration. The brands I mentioned, and many others, are filtered through multistage reverse osmosis units. Typically they start with a 10 micron fiber filter. Then a 5 micron carbon filter, which is probably about what a Britta filter is. The next stage is a 1 micron carbon filter, then through the RO membrane. And usually a final carbon filter. A really effective system with decent source water can get the total dissolved solids (TDS) down to 1 to 10 PPM. The feed water on my system at home is between 400 and 500 ppm, depending on the time of year. Usually the post RO water is in the 5 to 10 ppm range. I run that through a two stage dionization filter that takes it down to a TDS of 0 ppm. I used to keep saltwater invertebrates, so I needed a good filter to mix with salt. Since my tap water was so poor, I started drinking the filtered water and find most water with a TDS above 100 ppm to be pretty nasty tasting. Most of the filtered brands mix in some minerals and usually the TDS is in the 25 ppm range. I'll buy RO filtered water when I'm away from home, but use filtered water for the most part.

      I'm not sure what the cost difference is for bottled water, but the fiber and three carbon filters on my system need to be changed every 6 to 12 months and the RO membrane every 4 to 5 years. The filters are $25 for all of them and a the RO membrane is $45. I used to recharge the DI resins, but they're $40 for five lbs. So I don't have to play with muriatic acid and lye any longer. There's also the cost of waste water. In the winter months, when the feed water is cold, the RO membrane rejects about 2 gallons of water for every gallon that passes through. When the feed water is warmer, it will reject more.

    15. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      They sell canned water at whatever store the local survivalists are shopping at. In my area it is usually a "military surplus store" that is mostly civilian survivalist gear. In the Olden Days they used to make lots of canned water to fill the government bomb shelters built into school basements. If you see a public building that still has a civil defense sign, it might have some 50+ year old canned water in the basement.

      Cans are way more expensive than plastic though. And yes they can be recycled; at a high electricity cost. Lower than the energy needed for mining, so recycling of metals often happens.

      Here we put a 5 cent deposit on the plastic bottles. The plastic is recycled into new bottles.

    16. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      And those companies pay about the same amount per megalitre of water as you do per bottle!

      Source:
      http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/water-crisis-were-giving-the-stuff-away/2006/11/03/1162340050938.html

      However, in Australia there is a push to ban bottled water too, because it's just tap water and the bottles are harmful. The alternative is paying more for an empty bottle (which you reuse) and basically nothing for water refills.
      Some municipalities have already banned the sale of bottled water.

    17. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      At that point it's basically a smoothie, which nutritionally isn't much different from actual fruit.

    18. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      One quirk of the labels is that they just show what was added to it and not necessarily what's in it. For example, if you add a blueberries to your recipe, you'll put "blueberries" on the label, but in reality there's a bit more to it than that. See this:

      http://static1.businessinsider...

      And by the way, if somebody ever tells you to never consume something that has a chemical name you can't pronounce, they're full of shit and they're basically subscribing to the recent "food with integrity" religion that has all of about zero basis in science. It's this same mistaken belief that tells you "high fructose corn syrup" is bad, when in reality it's because somebody is afraid of the name. In fact if you pay close attention to that list of ingredients, and count only the simple sugars (fructose, glucose, and sucrose) these "natural" blueberries actually have more fructose than high fructose corn syrup.

    19. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by unixisc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you are one of those activists who'd like to see more successful companies go under, as opposed to selling alternative products to their traditional cash cows. So an RJR Nabisco or Phillip Morris should preferably have gone under, instead of selling things other than tobacco that would have left them in the black? And same for Coke & Pepsi?

      Bottled water is a legal product. May be 100% profit, but still legal. I never buy it, and somewhat pity morons who decide to stuff their fridges w/ it instead of using a Britta tap filter or a pitcher. Since I rarely drink water - always preferring either coke or lemonade or an alcoholic beverage, I don't have it. But that's their decision. Who exactly died and annointed you Caliph?

    20. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Modded down by those anti sugar trolls

    21. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Uh, whoosh?

      Rei was obviously talking about eating the actual fruit.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    22. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      100% juice implies that none of the colors or flavors are added. But since it comes directly from a fruit, it's absolutely truthful and not misleading to call it 'juice'. If someone can't tell from the sweetness of a pineapple or orange juice that it has sugar, then one is a certifiable moron!

    23. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Yaztromo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not only are you flushing your money down the toilet, but getting all those empty bottles out of our waste stream would be a great benefit for all of us.

      I'm rich enough that I only fill my toilet tanks with the finest imported bottled water. It's only the best for my effluence!

      Yaz

    24. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I also don't see energy drinks included in this. Energy drinks are tracked as their own category from soda and other soft drinks. The energy drink market has still been growing. I know I've seen more people with redbull, monster and other energy drinks, many of those replaced the mountain dew or other soda that used to be there.

      Pepsi and Coke have taken stakes in many of the energy drink companies. I don't think anyone has to worry one bit about 'Big Soda' disappearing any time soon.

    25. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I distill my water and carry it in a stainless steel bottle.

      There is a lot of misinformation about distilled water. I would like to correct some of that now:

      1) It is delicious! (your tastes may vary, but the notion that it tastes bad is silly...it tastes like water!)
      2) It is very mildly acidic. By way of comparison, a banana is slightly more acidic. Orange juice is hundreds of times more acidic. Soda pop is thousands of times more acidic. You body can handle it!
      3) It lacks minerals, which is perfectly fine. Tap water has barely any minerals in it, and the bio-availability is limited. You get more minerals from a bite of broccoli than from a gallon of tap water. You do not need tap water to get minerals!
      4) It does not leech minerals from your body. Taking a walk down the sidewalk on a warm day, however, does (your perspiration carries the minerals away). Marathon runners have to inject minerals into their water (whether it is tap water or not!). Distilled water will not deplete you of anything! It is perfectly safe!

      I have seen the horrible sludge that is left behind from boiling tap water down. I am *very* glad that putrid goop is not in my distilled water!

    26. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      At $1 plus a bottle (plus the almost always not recycled plastic bottle), why don't people just get a Britta filter for home or office?

      A brita filter is pretty crap. It's fine for filtering vodka but pretty lame for tap water. It's just some cotton balls and carbon granules. If that's what you want, you can do that yourself.

      It costs about $40-60 in stuff to add a halfway decent carbon-filtered drinking water faucet to an existing sink setup. A brita isn't even that much cheaper.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Is your soup carbonated?

    28. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Even if that's true for soda-style cans, you could still use vegetable/soup-style cans.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    29. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by miknix · · Score: 1

      It gets worse than that really. For example, most 100% fruit pulp juices need to be pasteurized so that they can be stored for longer in containment tanks before distribution. Some fruits (like orange) completely lose their flavor after pasteurization so the juice producers add artificial flavors to the juice after pasteurization to make it taste again like the original fruit... Ever wondered why all 100% orange pulp juices taste the same? Well now you have your answer, all juice brands pretty much use the same flavoring colorant...

    30. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by SydShamino · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bottled water sales trod upon the commons with regard to waste recycling or disposal. The number of one-time-use bottles being discarded "incorrectly" (meaning: not where they will be recycled) is staggering, as is the number that end up in the environment like the ocean.

      You see a successfully company being stomped out by liberals, liberals see a company taking from a common resource without paying for it.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    31. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not only are you flushing your money down the toilet, but getting all those empty bottles out of our waste stream would be a great benefit for all of us.

      I'm rich enough that I only fill my toilet tanks with the finest imported bottled water. It's only the best for my effluence!

      Yaz

      Re-bottle that and you could sell it as "Affluent Effluent" brand liquid fertilizer!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    32. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's why I prefer a sealed bottle of water when I'm drink water in a restaurant. I specifically ask for a closed bottle just in case they refill it from the tap and add ad drop of spit to it...

      Then the cook ejaculates in your food...

    33. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Modded down by those anti sugar trolls

      If it was "sugar" it wouldn't be so bad.

      The stuff they use to sweeten soda pop is some lab-accident shit, but it sure ain't sugar.

      You wanna taste sugar in soda pop, you gotta find the good stuff bottled in Mexico. Because they don't hand out the corn subsidies down there like we do, so they actually use proper cane sugar.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      It's also possible to read the ingredients list and make your decision that way. You don't have to do it every time, just identify the brands that say things like "no added sugar", "no added flavour" (Why the hell do they feel the need to add flavour to OJ?), "unfiltered" or "with pulp", and try to avoid the ones that use "reconstituted" juice.

      Or buy a decent juicer and some fresh fruit. You'll save money in the long run and it tastes a hell of a lot better.

      Plus, you can use the pulp in baking cakes and stuff. And man, that stuff is good.

      Don't be in such a goddamn hurry to just throw some calories down your neck.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    35. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Or read the calorie count, paying careful attention to serving size. The Oreo serving size for example, is typically 2 or 3 cookies, not the half the package you're actually going to eat.

      Food companies will always have a very good motive to include things that are sugar but aren't called sugar, because sugar is very tasty but people have figured that industrialized food production means we eat too damn much of it, and therefore they avoid it. But 150 calories is 150 calories, no matter whether you call it sugar or "nectar of the cane."

    36. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's this same mistaken belief that tells you "high fructose corn syrup" is bad, when in reality it's because somebody is afraid of the name.

      What do those goddamned egghead Princeton researchers know, amirite?

      https://www.princeton.edu/main...

      Also, those liberal smartypants over at the Journal of Clinical Investigation

      More damning evidence against fructose emerged just last week in an important study from the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Researchers in California recruited volunteers to drink a glass of Kool-Aid with every meal for 10 weeks; half took their soft drinks sweetened with fructose, the other half with glucose. By the end of the study period, both groups had put on weight, but the subjects getting fructose had more visceral fat—the kind that adheres to our organs and is associated with heightened risk for atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes. The fructose group also showed higher levels of LDL cholesterol and lower insulin sensitivity.

      Stupid, stupid scientists.

      I mean, forget about the fact that High Fructose Corn Syrup tastes like ass compared to actual cane sugar. I need my goddamn Big Gulp and I need it now!

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    37. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Rei was obviously talking about eating the actual fruit.

      What's "fruit"? Is that like chocolate covered cherries?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    38. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Ian+A.+Shill · · Score: 1
      Mitch? Mitch Hedburg? Man, we heard you was dead.

      Me, I like my juice in burger form, made from dead animals.

      --
      For hire.
    39. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Patent+Lover · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't need to filter it. Tap water is drinkable as is. Seeing people buying cases of bottled water makes me cringe/laugh.

    40. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Won't be long before all the Envirowackos and Health Freaks have people drinking out of ditches.

    41. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bizarre. That "putrid goop" is minerals that humans have been drinking for millions of years and is good for you. I never understood freaks like you who are scared of "goop". I blame it on over protective mothers who never let their suburban children play in the mud.

    42. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you fuckers don't like soda or fruit juices, then don't drink them.

      If you don't like anything people do, don't do it yourself. Sell your TV and couch, drink from a fucking trench, eat nuts and twigs you scrounge from the woods, whatever you want.

      But Shut The Fuck Up about other people do. It's none of your fucking business.

      Let me see if I understand this...Republicans are bad because they generally disapprove of men fucking each other up the ass and spreading HIV. But you people are heroes because you don't want me to have a Big Gulp on a Saturday afternoon.

      FUCK YOU.

    43. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      Oh, it still works just fine for people who read the labels.

      Well, I was responding to GP, who said you could just look at a label for "no added sugar" -- and my specific response was that using that marker does NOT "work just fine" if your intention is to avoid foods or drinks with significant amounts of added sugar.

      If you don't understand what evaporated cane juice is, then don't buy products that contain it. Simple simple. If you don't know what syrup is, or if it is something that you eat, then be on the safe side and don't eat it.

      Absolutely -- and with that I wholeheartedly agree. I don't buy any products that contain ingredients which I'm unfamiliar with. Then again, I have a strong science background and understand quite a bit about chemistry, so I can decipher more food additives pretty well.

      The average person simply doesn't have that kind of knowledge, so they trust labels that say things like "no sugar added" to have some useful meaning. They take their best guess at what "evaporated cane juice" might be, and it sounds like "juice." Have you ever talked to the average person, with an IQ of around 100? Now talk to the 50% of the population who don't have that level of intelligence. It's really hard to sort these things out for most people.

      Of course, the easiest way to avoid most of these issues is just to stop buying "processed" food. (I know that term is a bit vague.) I don't buy much of it myself -- and I cook and bake most of my meals for myself from basic ingredients. Unfortunately, our culture has collectively lost a lot of that basic kitchen knowledge in the past couple generations, coupled with a work culture that doesn't allow one parent to be allowed time to devote to food preparation.

      So a lot of people just have to resort to "processed" foods. And even many of the "healthy" choices at the "natural" markets will be using misleading labels like this. I have had many people in my own family who have been "taken in" by these things (people who are otherwise quite smart, have very good jobs, advanced degrees, etc.), and they simply don't realize the bogus advertising. They're trying to make a better choice for themselves or for their kids, and personally I think they shouldn't have to know a dozen different obscure products that are essentially "added sugar" to be able to spot them buried in ingredients lists for products with "no added sugar."

      The FDA's guidelines on product labeling exist for a reason. I don't think a company like Chobani is technically in violation of the current guidelines -- rather, this is a case where better guidelines could make things more transparent.

    44. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Ionized · · Score: 1, Insightful

      high fructose corn syrup: 55% fructose, 45% glucode

      table sugar: 50% fructose, 50% glucose

      yep, huge difference there.

    45. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Funny

      And those companies pay about the same amount per megalitre of water as you do per bottle!

      Source:
      http://www.theage.com.au/news/...

      However, in Australia there is a push to ban bottled water too, because it's just tap water and the bottles are harmful. The alternative is paying more for an empty bottle (which you reuse) and basically nothing for water refills.
      Some municipalities have already banned the sale of bottled water.

      Reminds me of that Mario brothers movie, where their van has overheated and one is coming out of a shop with armfuls of bottled water because the shopkeeper had claimed not to have a tap...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    46. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      that cranberry or pomegranate "100% juice" drink is probably mostly a bunch of super-sweet grape or apple juice or whatever with a sprinkling of the juice that's too sour for most people to find palatable.)

      So true.

      Most people, if they had a mouthful of 100% cranberry juice would immediately spit it out!!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    47. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      100% juice implies that none of the colors or flavors are added. But since it comes directly from a fruit, it's absolutely truthful and not misleading to call it 'juice'. If someone can't tell from the sweetness of a pineapple or orange juice that it has sugar, then one is a certifiable moron!

      I do sometimes see juice thats labelled as "Not made from concentrate", those are hopefully the only actual juice one can buy. The rest are effectively cordials (or squash) which should be diluted.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    48. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Anyone who can't recognise the industry terms and marketing language in the parent post, and the purpose of carefully crafted structure of it... I have a slightly used bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

      Actually I'm in the medical industry. But was in the saltwater hobby for a very long time starting in the late 1970's. It's actually where my screen name is derived from. I kept reef tanks.

      As far as "industry terms", I'm pretty sure I explained anything other than what ppm stood for, under the assumption that parts per million is a fairly standard measurement for anyone who took high-school chemistry. Everything else is very well known to anyone in the hobby.

      I'm not sure what marketing language you think is in there, but, please, do tell what the purpose of my post was. Other than to relay information.

    49. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      If it was "sugar" it wouldn't be so bad.

      Sorry, but YES it would be. Having a 12-ounce drink with something like 9-10 teaspoons of sugar in it is just ridiculous. It has no nutritional value other than the easiest form of energy for your body. Unless you're starving to death and simply need the extra calories, there's simply no reason to consume plain sugar.

      The stuff they use to sweeten soda pop is some lab-accident shit, but it sure ain't sugar.

      Uh, you do realize how much processing goes into making white cane sugar? Just because they started doing it several generations ago doesn't make it any less of "lab accident" crap than corn syrup.

      Do you have any idea how many FEET of sugar cane you'd have to consume to get the equivalent of the amount of sugar in a (Mexican) bottle of Coke? Even if you did eat enough sugar cane to do so, you'd have also consumed so much fiber that it would completely change your digestion and metabolism of what you ate.

      You wanna taste sugar in soda pop, you gotta find the good stuff bottled in Mexico.

      I have. Yeah, it tastes different. Still terrible and sickeningly sweet. Sometimes I actually like a little bit of sweetness in a drink -- although I don't usually do this, sometimes I add a teaspoon of sugar or so to a 12-ounce mug of coffee or tea. NOT TEN TEASPOONS.

      The quantity of sugar in soft drinks is absolutely insane. Suggesting that somehow it wouldn't be "so bad" for you if it were cane sugar is just nonsense.

    50. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Bottled water tastes way better than tap water. It's because people insisted on having kids drink tap water that they turned to soda instead... Give them actuallu good water and there is no need for that crap.

    51. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      if the end user doesnt do their part (recycle) how is that the companies fault???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    52. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      high fructose corn syrup: 55% fructose, 45% glucode

      table sugar: 50% fructose, 50% glucose

      yep, huge difference there.

      And yet, the research. Maybe high-fructose corn syrup has more differences than just the fructose/glucose levels? Despite what the powerful corn lobby in the US would have you believe, corn is just not all that good for you in large amounts. And with the amount that goes into HFCS, drinking soda pop is getting corn in large amounts.

      Plus, it's all patented-gene bullshit with a heaping side order of glyphosates, and who wants to give money to Monsanto?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    53. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by dskoll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, bottled water is a real WTF. For people who live in first-world countries with proper sanitation and water treatment, it makes no sense whatsoever to buy bottled water. Plus all those plastic bottles are terrible for the environment.

    54. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      HFCS and Sucrose are both made out of both sucrose and glucose. The difference is fairly small.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    55. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Well, "no added sugar" is a start. When I said "read the ingredients" I kind of meant "read and understand the ingredients". When I see "reconstituted x juice" I'm immediately suspicious because there's no guarantee it's been reconstituted back to 100% of the original volume. If you only reconstitute it back to 80 or 90%, it's going to taste sweeter, isn't it?

      I'll assume you're in the USofA. Australian labelling laws are a little different. I don't believe you can put "no added sugar" and "evaporated cane juice" on the same label here and get away with it.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    56. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      I was told the strength of the cans is a result of the carbonated drink inside. They are too soft to transport plain water.

      First of all, the most difference you could possibly see between a carbonated vs. non-carbonated beverage is that the carbonated drink can might be a bit more resistant to denting. But a lack of pressure won't make the can spontaneously implode or anything like that, any more than it does an empty can.

      But more to the point, I have seen non-carbonated iced tea sold in standard soda cans. Perhaps they add a bit of pressure to the headspace in that case, but either way, it's clearly not a problem.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    57. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Or buy a decent juicer and some fresh fruit. You'll save money in the long run and it tastes a hell of a lot better.

      I've got both a citrus juicer and a centrifugal juicer. You're right about both $$$ and taste.

      Plus, you can use the pulp in baking cakes and stuff. And man, that stuff is good.

      Tried that once. Wasn't successful. Now I feed it to the chickens and get eggs in return.

      Don't be in such a goddamn hurry to just throw some calories down your neck.

      I'm not. I throw beer down my neck. But sometimes I'm out shopping and I feel like an OJ - and once in a while I get the urge for a Coke.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    58. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Ionized · · Score: 1

      the snippet you posted compared pure fructose to pure glucose. which is not at all the same as comparing HFCS to table sugar.

      fructose may very well be worse for you than glucose, but that is completely irrelevant when we are talking about HFCS vs table sugar, as they are both roughly half and half.

      show me a study from a reputable source that is able to show that HFCS is in any way worse than table sugar. good luck.

    59. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      Treating tap water as if it were a uniform product worldwide, or even nationwide, is ignorant. There are millions of wells in just the U.S.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    60. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The common sweetener in U.S. soft drinks is fructose. Fructose is a sugar.

      Cane sugar, sucrose, is not the only sugar.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    61. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      They don't taste the same.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    62. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by russotto · · Score: 1

      Apple juice and orange juice naturally have a sugar concentration similar to (but higher than) what you find in soda. So does cranberry juice. Even carrot juice and grapefruit juice have a sugar concentration similar to what you find in soda.

    63. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Darn, they've ruined the pencils, too. That's not lead; it's graphite, clay, and a binder.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    64. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Soup cans are not only thicker than soda cans, they're made of different materials. Soda cans are aluminum. Soup cans are tinned steel. In some cases, the inside of a metal can may have a very thin plastic coating to provide better corrosion resistance.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    65. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Brita does a nice job removing iron from high-iron well water.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    66. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 2

      There is bottled water then there is bottled water. I refer of course to the Perrier class of bottled water vs the Hinkley-Schmidt class. The Perrier class is a lot more expensive and certainly a waste.

    67. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by mrprogrammerman · · Score: 1

      Sure tap water is drinkable, but the taste is usually the reason people buy bottle water or filter it.

    68. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I'm in the US, and you can't do it here either. Sugar is listed not only in the ingredients, but also in the "Nutrition Facts" which tells you how many sugar calories there are. If there is no added sugar, there has to be no added sugar calories. Same as "sugar free." Evaporated cane juice isn't a checklist gimmick to pretend to be sugar-free, it is actually a much more expensive product than sugar, it is a more natural and less processed form of cane sugar. It still has all the non-sugar parts of the cane juice that give it a rich flavor. It is kindof funny in consideration of the above comment about non-processed foods. That is exactly why evaporated cane juice is on the label; because a lot of consumers these days want a less processed sweetener. If people didn't know what it meant, the product would have "sugar" which is cheaper, or "brown sugar" if they wanted a broader flavor.

      There are apparently companies who label the sugar content wrong, and got in trouble and had to stop. Which in my view proves that it is illegal here, and explains why I've never actually seen an example of it. People who are cynical, but don't read labels, seem to latch onto the fact that it happened, without realizing that they know about it only because it was stopped.

      In the case of reconstituted juice, I have indeed seen "110% juice." They're required to measure the amount of liquid they remove and put back the same amount, but I agree it is a likely area for abuse. Most labels here are pretty good. If it has added sugar, it isn't juice it is "juice cocktail."

    69. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Not only fruit juice, but the fruit itself. I have a lot of fruit trees and every summer, my dogs get really fat from all the fruit that falls to the ground or that they can reach. I don't even feed them.

    70. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Cane nectar would be a different product, and would be very expensive. The words have meaning, and if you don't know the meaning of the different word forms for foods, then you won't have any way to understand the ingredients or what they are communicating to the customers the product is targeting.

      I can easily see cane nectar costing more than hummingbird tongues. You'd just about have to hire hummingbirds to collect it.

      Generally speaking, people who eat oreos are only reading the label because they're bored. They're not actually choosing different products based on the ingredients, unless it is to avoid a food allergy. And if they don't know that calories are based on serving sizes, that wouldn't surprise me at all.

    71. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1, Informative

      I distill my water and carry it in a stainless steel bottle.

      There is a lot of misinformation about distilled water. I would like to correct some of that now:

      1) It is delicious! (your tastes may vary, but the notion that it tastes bad is silly...it tastes like water!) 2) It is very mildly acidic. By way of comparison, a banana is slightly more acidic. Orange juice is hundreds of times more acidic. Soda pop is thousands of times more acidic. You body can handle it! 3) It lacks minerals, which is perfectly fine. Tap water has barely any minerals in it, and the bio-availability is limited. You get more minerals from a bite of broccoli than from a gallon of tap water. You do not need tap water to get minerals! 4) It does not leech minerals from your body. Taking a walk down the sidewalk on a warm day, however, does (your perspiration carries the minerals away). Marathon runners have to inject minerals into their water (whether it is tap water or not!). Distilled water will not deplete you of anything! It is perfectly safe!

      I have seen the horrible sludge that is left behind from boiling tap water down. I am *very* glad that putrid goop is not in my distilled water!

      Clinical studies say otherwise. Seriously, don't listen to this troll; it's not that distilled water lacks minerals, it's that it actively draws them out of your body. Drink it and your blood becomes acidic, leeching nutrients out of your bones and muscle tissue, which will cause you a wide array of crippling health effects. I don't want to see anyone here wind up dead 30 years early because some ignorant idiot thinks he knows it all.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    72. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I only drink bottled water form California. That my drink means someone else must go without makes it taste that much more refreshing.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    73. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

      I distill my water and carry it in a stainless steel bottle.

      There is a lot of misinformation about distilled water. I would like to correct some of that now:

      1) It is delicious! (your tastes may vary, but the notion that it tastes bad is silly...it tastes like water!) 2) It is very mildly acidic. By way of comparison, a banana is slightly more acidic. Orange juice is hundreds of times more acidic. Soda pop is thousands of times more acidic. You body can handle it! 3) It lacks minerals, which is perfectly fine. Tap water has barely any minerals in it, and the bio-availability is limited. You get more minerals from a bite of broccoli than from a gallon of tap water. You do not need tap water to get minerals! 4) It does not leech minerals from your body. Taking a walk down the sidewalk on a warm day, however, does (your perspiration carries the minerals away). Marathon runners have to inject minerals into their water (whether it is tap water or not!). Distilled water will not deplete you of anything! It is perfectly safe!

      I have seen the horrible sludge that is left behind from boiling tap water down. I am *very* glad that putrid goop is not in my distilled water!

      Clinical studies say otherwise. Seriously, don't listen to this troll; it's not that distilled water lacks minerals, it's that it actively draws them out of your body. Drink it and your blood becomes acidic, leeching nutrients out of your bones and muscle tissue, which will cause you a wide array of crippling health effects. I don't want to see anyone here wind up dead 30 years early because some ignorant idiot thinks he knows it all.

      At least he recycles his bottle though, that's a step in the right direction. Don't use disposable plastic bottles, it's not only ridiculously expensive for you in the long run but is also absolutly horrid for the environment.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    74. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by Chas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe if you had bottled water, you'd drink it instead of coke and other nasty things.
      Despite popular belief, tap water, even with a Britta, is nothing like bottled water which is actually nice to drink.

      Bullshit.

      http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH...

      http://www.today.com/food/your...

      http://www.allaboutwater.org/t...

      https://youtu.be/saSgpX186MM

      In many cases, bottled water is coming from a municipal water source. It's treated and filtered the same way all municipal water is. About the only thing that happens is that the companies sometimes re-introduce minerals to enhance the flavor.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    75. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear -- most flavors of Chobani yogurt contains more sugar per ounce than Coca Cola. That's what a "no sugar added" [foodnavigator-usa.com] label gets you these days

      If you want yogurt, then you get plain Fage greek yogurt. If you want it flavored with something then you add it yourself, or put the yogurt into something else. By the way most nutrition labels show how many grams of sugars there are in something, not just all carbohydrates.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    76. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Along with that, I think somebody should point out that fuit juice is almost as bad as soda

      Yes, they should, and anyone that disagrees with you is, in my opinion, deeply in denial and needs to acknowledge the truth: 'fruit juice' is just more flavored sugar water, devoid of any real nutrition. Nutritionists, trainers, coaches, etc., will tell you 'don't drink your calories'. You want fruit? Eat whole fruit, don't drink their juices. That being said if you're trying to avoid sugars then don't eat much fruit, except as a treat.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    77. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      You must be pretty special then, if everyone you know was born knowing about deionized juice. Virtually no one that I meet knows anything about what they are eating.

      I do think, however, that if a "juice" maker makes their "juice" by adding sugar extracted from juice, that should show up in the ingredients as sugar, not as juice.

      Is that really a controversial position to take?

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    78. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Try to restrain your dogs from doing that. It's really unhealthy for them - treating a dog with diabetes is definitely not a nice pastime.

    79. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      it's that it actively draws them out of your body. Drink it and your blood becomes acidic, leeching nutrients out of your bones and muscle tissue

      WTF? Pure water does not make blood any more acidic or basic. It simply can not do it. In reality, drinking distilled water is OK - your body gets more than enough minerals with food to not care about a couple of milligrams of missing dissolved salts.

    80. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      So you're opposing the fact that quite literally millions of people were spared premature death from lung diseases just because in future other millions of people will be spared from other diseases?

    81. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1, Informative

      it's that it actively draws them out of your body. Drink it and your blood becomes acidic, leeching nutrients out of your bones and muscle tissue

      WTF? Pure water does not make blood any more acidic or basic. It simply can not do it. In reality, drinking distilled water is OK - your body gets more than enough minerals with food to not care about a couple of milligrams of missing dissolved salts.

      It makes it more acidic because it draws out the bases into itself, which you then urinate out. Hence, what's left behind is a collection of the acids in your blood, and so overtime the average acidity becomes higher and higher - it's blood we're talking about, not water. If you drink it regularly, you will develop mineral deficiencies (it's not just salt it takes out of you) unless you consume a crap ton of them to make up for it, and at that point you're essentially drinking hard water but mixing it in your body.

      Distilled water might be advisable to drink if, for example, you either have a severe overbalance of minerals or you have consumed a toxic substance of some kind; but it's really not intended as a daily drink and will give you some pretty nasty health problems, like iron deficiency (which carries oxygen from your lungs throughout the rest of your body), tooth decay (because it saps calcium out of your teeth), and an electrolyte imbalance (it'll sap these too) if you do.

      A good quality reverse osmosis filter will take out all the nasty stuff, but still leave just enough minerals behind; so long as you make sure to consume enough to compensate, this right here will be fine for you. But drinking distilled water will slowly dissolve your very body into itself.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    82. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      It makes it more acidic because it draws out the bases into itself, which you then urinate out.

      How? It's not possible chemically. Bases are negatively charged, so if you piss them away then your body will get charged. It's impossible, of course. Water can only _dilute_ the bodily fluids.

      And never mind that the blood acidity is one of the most tightly controlled body parameters - you simply can't affect it in any measurable way by eating different kinds of food or drink (that is, until you get a SERIOUS metabolic disorder).

    83. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      bottled water is now on track to overtake soda as the largest beverage category in two years.

      Everyone should note that for the most part bottled water is just "tap water" that has been filtered.

      The OP forgot to mention "fruit juices", which is fruit that's been peeled (to eliminate all that nasty fibre and vitamins in the skin), pulped, the juice extracted (to get rid of any remaining fibre) and then processed so that what's left is a huge dose of good, healthy(tm) fructose and not much else. So now you can be healthy(tm) and natural(r) while drinking something that often has more sugar in it than Coke/Pepsi/whatever.

      At least expensive tap water in plastic bottles isn't obviously unhealthy for you (except that it's not subject to the same stringent regulation as what water utilities provide, so it can be less healthy than tap water, but then I'm sure a little e.coli never hurt anyone), all you get is the environmental impact of all that plastic.

    84. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by camg188 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From wikipedia
      In 2006, FIJI Water ran an advertisement stating, "The label says Fiji because it's not bottled in Cleveland". This was taken as an insult by the city's water department.[18] The Cleveland Water Department ran tests comparing a bottle of FIJI Water to Cleveland tap water and some other national bottled brands. FIJI Water reportedly contained 6.31 micrograms of arsenic per litre, whereas the tap water of Cleveland contained none.

    85. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      if the end user doesnt do their part (recycle) how is that the companies fault???

      "We just sell the guns/syringes/pseudoephedrine/oxycodone, it's not our fault if people misuse it/them (shrug)".

    86. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by serbanp · · Score: 1

      Cane sugar, sucrose, is not the only sugar.

      Yeah, you're right, it's the two sugars (50% fructose and 50% glucose).

      And you're ignorant about what's in the American soft drinks too. The vast majority are sweetened with HFCS, which is about 55% fructose and 45% glucose, practically a wash when comparing to sugar. Both equally bad because of the fructose.

    87. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by guises · · Score: 1

      The recycling argument is a weak one, especially when it comes to plastic. New plastic is cheap enough that recycling plastic isn't sufficiently profitable to put a lot of effort into it. Unlike aluminum. So plastic recycling options aren't as readily available and companies which collect the trash don't put as much effort into fishing out the plastics for recycling. Ultimately, disposable plastic bottles just shouldn't be used at all.

      This is what the poster up towards the top of the thread was saying, then another person chipped in with that, "What? You just want to put companies out of business?" nonsense, etc.

      To answer your question: there are many ways that the profusion of plastic bottles in our oceans is the drink companies' fault. Most are pretty benign, just one aspect of that business. For example: why do we have plastic bottles in the first place? Most countries still use glass bottles for their soda. Reason: Americans treat their sodas as drinks rather than as snacks. If you go someplace and buy a soda and drink it there, on the spot, and return the bottle, then it can be washed and reused. This is cheaper and more environmentally friendly and really better in every respect than plastic. Americans aren't willing to do this though, they want to take the bottles with them and glass would make that more expensive.

      Why do Americans want to do this? It has a lot to do with how we look at labor and time, which makes it possible here and not in many other places, but it's also about marketing: encouraging this lead to more sales.

      This does not mean that the entirety of the blame rests on the drink companies. Obviously that person should have recycled their plastic bottle, but it would be better for everyone (except drink company shareholders) if that plastic bottle didn't exist in the first place.

    88. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by serbanp · · Score: 1

      It seems that you misunderstood what the researchers did. They fed a set of subjects fructose-sweetened soda and another set glucose-based soda. Both table sugar and HFCS have similar amounts of both.

      As for the taste, HFCS is slightly sweeter, but aside from that, any difference must come from residual elements in the sweetener. Absolutely pure sugar and HFCS would taste similarly.

    89. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      And those companies pay about the same amount per megalitre of water as you do per bottle!

      Yep. Is there a single reason why soda companies would WANT people to keep on drinking soda? Soda has water+ingredients. Ingredients cost money.

      I wouldn't be surprised if it's really the soda companies paying for all the 'Sugar is poison!' stories.

      --
      No sig today...
    90. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      If the garbage collectors don't come and pick up after me, how it it my fault that the city is a mess? I'm _paying_ them to clean up, dammit!

      --
      No sig today...
    91. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Maybe if you had bottled water, you'd drink it instead of coke and other nasty things.
      Despite popular belief, tap water, even with a Britta, is nothing like bottled water which is actually nice to drink.

      Bullshit.

      Speaking of bullshit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      How does it feel to be sitting at that table, Chas?

      --
      No sig today...
    92. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      And how do they 'filter' it you may ask...?

      Answer: Not much. DO you see any trucks full of 'residue' driving out of those bottling plants? Me either.

      --
      No sig today...
    93. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Along with that, I think somebody should point out that fuit juice is almost as bad as soda.

      True...! ...but it's kinda difficult to drink massive amounts of juice. Try it sometime - your brain says "stop drinking now!" much sooner than with soda.

      Soda is concocted so that the sugar goes down easily.

      --
      No sig today...
    94. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Sucrose gets metabolized into fructose before it can be absorbed:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      (and glucose...)

      --
      No sig today...
    95. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I wanna know how come that's not part of the "Neanderthal diet".

      Why are those people holding back from the true Neanderthal experience? It's well known that germs and parasites reduce allergies and all those modern "illnesses" that living in cities brought us.

      --
      No sig today...
    96. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Can I remind everyone that Evian spelled backwards is naive?

    97. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I wanna know how come that's not part of the "Neanderthal diet".

      Why would it be? Neanderthals knew how to use fire, and besides lived near melting continental glacier which would had provided basically endless streams of fresh water.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    98. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Sibko · · Score: 1

      That's not true though.

      The bottled water usually tastes much better than the tap water that's often highly chlorinated, and it's convenient - not just in the sense that it's easy to carry around, but also in that it's easy to find and get access to, because you can buy it pretty much anywhere you go, anytime you want.

      If I'm visiting the city, or even out on a beach, I will not be usually be able to find any freely available drinking fountains. Usually the only place I see any at all are gyms, schools, and older parks. If I didn't pack any water with me? Well, too bad for me.

      People have more than a few very valid reasons for buying bottled water - if they didn't, they wouldn't buy it. You want to change that, start looking at why people buy it in the first place and start tackling and solving those problems/demands that corporate america saw, exploited, and fixed.

    99. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I've stayed in plenty of hotels in various countries in Asia and Eastern Europe where there are signs next to the taps advising you not to drink the water from them, and to drink instead the bottled water that's provided gratis.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    100. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Ask any dentist what the best way is to destroy your teeth, short of hitting yourself in the mouth with a hammer.

      Hint: it features a combination of sugar and carbonation. The caramel colouring also contributes to a win.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    101. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Or you could, you know, recycle the plastic bottles. It's not that hard to do. Especially if your country no longer uses landfills.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    102. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      CocaCola tried to sell a bottled tap water in the UK and it bombed. It would be a trade description failure if anyone tried to sell tap water as mineral water. I personally have had tap filters for 20 odd years because i hate the taste of chlorine. i only buy a bottle of non-fizzy water to refill and reuse (until it breaks) with filtered tap water. But i will buy mineral water in a restaurant for the same reason, i don't want the taste of chlorine in the tap water provided.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    103. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      i'd class coke and pepsi as energy drinks anyway due the caffeine content and high sugar levels. "Energy drink" is a spin label for high sugar and/or caffeine.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    104. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      and its not so good for your teeth either due to the acid in the fruit

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    105. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Where I live (Sweden), canned water is very common--you can get it in most if not all grocery and convenience stores, cafés, the break room in our office, etc.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    106. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      If I get health problems in the future, so be it, I enjoy Coke a lot more then water, so it is worth it.

      I used to think like you. Having to stick about a year's salary into getting my teeth fixed encouraged me to think differently.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    107. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      If you want a real mindfuck, try looking up what sucralose is.

      Stuff messes with my head like a psychotropic drug and gives my Mom diarrhea to the point that she avoids it, and this is an old lady who trusts ALL medicines and food additives implicitly and yet this one she shies away from, due to bad experiences.

      Use that science and chemistry background to tell you whether you're familiar with sucralose, go on. It's in EVERYTHING these days. It's in stuff that's already loaded with sugar and HFCS. Read labels and then read what the stuff is.

    108. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Tom · · Score: 1

      It depends a lot on which juice you buy. As I drink a lot of juice, I'm checking labels before buying one I don't know yet, and you usually have a good choice. Once you understand that there are different quality levels of juice and how to discern them, you can avoid the crap that is basically coke with fruit flavor.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    109. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I'm not. I throw beer down my neck. But sometimes I'm out shopping and I feel like an OJ - and once in a while I get the urge for a Coke.

      Even though my comment was a reply to yours, I wasn't really directing any criticism at you, drywit. I agree. I'll have a Coke now and then, too. If that's what I'm served at a backyard BBQ or something. I just try to add enough Jack Daniels to kill the taste of the HFCS.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    110. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I posted two studies elsewhere in this conversation. One from Princeton and one from the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

      I don't know if you find those sources reputable.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    111. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What do those Princeton egghead PSYCHOLOGY GRADUATE STUDENTS know about nutritional science? Nothing. That study is bogus.

      Let's see...

      "In results published online Feb. 26 by the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, the researchers from the Department of Psychology and the Princeton Neuroscience Institute reported on two experiments investigating the link between the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and obesity."

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    112. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by antdude · · Score: 1

      I just add water to my fruit juice drinks to dillute it. Sure, they don't take good, but much better to have less sugar.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    113. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by pr0nbot · · Score: 1

      For a long time in the Germanic countries (I don't know if it's still so) the norm was for the price of a bottled drink to include a deposit which would be refunded when returning the bottle. (I think it has at times been the same in the US? Hobos collecting cans and so on to cash in the deposit.) I assume the deposit didn't go to the manufacturer but rather to the state in some way, but I don't know.

      This created an economic incentive for consumers to recycle the containers, and an apparently sensible system for collecting the containers (because you'd return your bottles to a shop, and when the next delivery of drinks came, the empty van could be filled back up with the empty bottles).

      Whether it's efficient, in the sense of measurable environmental outcomes, I don't know, but it seemed sensible to me. (In my experience, Germanic people are pretty accepting of systems, rather than seeing them as an illiberal encroachment on their freedoms, so stuff like this works when implemented.)

      In the particular case of bottled water it's hard to imagine that any scheme could be more environmentally effective than people not buying it.

    114. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

      There is bottled water then there is bottled water. I refer of course to the Perrier class of bottled water vs the Hinkley-Schmidt class. The Perrier class is a lot more expensive and certainly a waste.

      The point of drinking Perrier water is not to drink water, because it's not simple tap water. The gas and flavor is why people drink it. It is all about how Perrier is different from tap water that makes it interesting. I started drinking Perrier at about age 10 because I liked it, and my family was dirt poor so it wasn't something we had laying around.

      Now as an adult, I have long since made my own carbonated water because it turned out the plain fizzy water is what I liked most of all. I've got three-year supply of carbon dioxide gas in a tank not 10 feet from me. I take this habit very seriously.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    115. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by pr0nbot · · Score: 1

      I found that eau de toilette turned out not to be as cost-effective as the name would imply.

    116. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No one gets diabetes from eating fruits ... and you can be assured most animals know better than you what is good for them and what not.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    117. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are fringe groups of Environmentalists and Health Nuts, who seem to forget or not realize the advancements we have made over the last couple thousand years in providing clean and much more healthy drinking water. There is a reason why our forefathers drank a lot of beer and hard cider, it was healthier then drinking water. The alcohol which damaged their livers and took decades off their lifespan, was a better option of drinking fresh water which could have microbes that could kill you the next week. Now we had great improvement in water purification technologies so clean drinking water is possible and better for you then alcohol. Which then leads us to the 1920's prohibition, where many people who were employed to serve alcohol either had to work black market, go to a different career, or adapt. Those who adapted, help make things as Malted Milk Shakes, and Soda-Pop and other "Soft" drinks. Where they could use their now clean water to make new drinks which is what they were good at. Now these soft drinks were speciality drinks, were candy not meant for constant consumption, so they were not targeted towards to being part of your daily diet. Then we get to those silly Baby Boomers who never wanted to grow up. So their culture rejected all the stuffy restrictions of their parents and tried to be young and hip. Thus causing them to drink more soda, and avoiding classifying it as kids stuff, then we get to their kids, where they felt it was OK to feed their children this as part of their normal grocery items. So the Gen X got hooked on the taste.

      Now, Soda isn't like tobacco where it is an addictive substance, it is much easier to quit the soda habit/substitute it with something else. We Americans have a problem of overdoing things that we like. When we smoke we smoke packs of cigarettes a day not one every few days. When we drink soda it is part of our diet not just a random treat. If we don't like meat then we go full vegan, if we like meat, then we reject all vegetarian meals. When our excess goes out of control, it is easier to blame the product maker, then ourselves for going in excess.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    118. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention it's bottled by the same companies like Pepsico and Coke that make soda. So if people keep drinking water these companies have nothing to worry about.

      We should make them worry and stop buying bottled water. Not only are you flushing your money down the toilet, but getting all those empty bottles out of our waste stream would be a great benefit for all of us.

      I hear yah , just check out some vintage Penn and Teller to illustrate the point hilariously! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    119. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      Maybe if you had bottled water, you'd drink it instead of coke and other nasty things. Despite popular belief, tap water, even with a Britta, is nothing like bottled water which is actually nice to drink.

      i refer you to this , which i am going to do to every stupid twat that say that very stupid thing you just said! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    120. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      high fructose corn syrup: 55% fructose, 45% glucode

      table sugar: 50% fructose, 50% glucose

      yep, huge difference there.

      sugar has a sweetness rating of 100 , HFCS has a rating of 180, do they use less due to the high sweetness rating?.. nope...

    121. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Kavonte · · Score: 1

      Uh, you do realize how much processing goes into making white cane sugar?

      That's what always gets me about the anti-HFCS people. Why they think sugar is so innocent is beyond my understanding. Normally, when one takes a plant and refines it down to a single chemical which not only causes bad health but which is also addictive, we consider that to be a very bad thing and make it illegal, but somehow sugar gets a free pass because it's a simple five-letter word which everyone has been familiar with for as long as they can remember, and so it doesn't sound nearly as scary as "high-fructose corn syrup."

      Another thing that annoys me is when they eventually become tired of typing "high-fructose" all of the time and so they start being anti - corn syrup rather than anti - high-fructose corn syrup. Ordinary corn syrup contains no fructose, but is instead only glucose, the sugar that your body uses for energy, and so while you still shouldn't consume a lot of it, its health effects aren't nearly as bad since there's nothing in it that your body doesn't know how to metabolize correctly. The problem is the fructose which can only be metabolized by the liver because the rest of the body doesn't know how to use it for energy, and which the liver turns into all of the symptoms of "metabolic syndrome," e.g. non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

      It doesn't matter if the fructose comes from HFCS, sugar, or fruit, it's unhealthy to consume it. ...but fuck you if you say anything bad about fruit, as it is the icon for healthy eating, as it's the only source of addictive fructose that those natural foods types get and they sure as hell don't want to give it up. However, we can get the vitamins in fruit from many sources and so it isn't necessary to allow trees and plants to exploit our addiction in order to spread their seeds. Despite popular belief, trees don't create fruit because they love us and would never do anything to harm us, they're just doing whatever helps them to survive, and it doesn't matter to them whether the fruit is mildly toxic to us or not. Fruit juice is every bit as harmful as soda, so it's sad to see people promote it as a healthy alternative.

    122. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 1

      The next question is: why would you filter tap water after it's already been treated? I'd be more concerned about the microbial population of my home filter than about the quality of the tap water in most places that have water treatment plants.

      As for the juices, unlike sodas, you do get vitamins unfortunately, even without added sugar, fruits that you don't have to chew or digest to assimilate, means that you get all those extra fruit servings, without feeling satiated and without the solids slowing down the assimilation rate. It's only a small step up from sodas to juices.

      My beverage of choice: unfiltered tap water.

      --
      I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
    123. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      And yet, the research. Maybe high-fructose corn syrup has more differences than just the fructose/glucose levels?

      Yes, let's talk about "the research." I've been following this fairly closely for a decade.

      About a decade ago I got into an argument with a friend over the overconsumption of sugar. I, like you, assumed with all the bad press about HCFS (even back then) that it was terrible for you. So, I started looking for reliable, clear studies that proved it.

      The problem was: THERE WEREN'T ANY. Since then, there have been a few, but given how many people are shouting about how terrible HFCS is, it seems surprisingly hard to prove it.

      Let me summarize the state of current research:

      (1) Pure fructose vs. glucose -- there are dozens of studies showing that pure fructose screws up metabolism in rats and humans much worse than glucose.

      (2) Pure fructose vs. sucrose -- there are dozens of studies showing that pure fructose screws up metabolism in rates and human much worse than sucrose.

      (3) HFCS (~50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose) vs. sucrose -- until about 2010 and that Princeton study, there were basically NO STUDIES that showed a statistically significant difference between consumption of HFCS vs. sucrose (table sugar). To the contrary, there are at least a dozen or so studies out there if you look where they tried looking for a difference and didn't really find one.

      This surprised me, given what I had been told about HFCS, but it also makes sense given that HFCS is basically about 50/50 fructose/glucose, which is very close to what sucrose becomes very early in the digestive process.

      The vast majority of people who are shouting "HFCS is terrible!" tend to cite the studies in categories (1) and (2). You did precisely that in your quote from the Journal of Clinical Investigation. A number of studies in the past which tried measuring pure fructose and found significant differences found that there were little to no measurable differences when they substituted HFCS for the fructose.

      I'm very interested in the studies in category (3). They include your Princeton citation, as well as a more recent study out of the University of Utah. There was also a bit of attention given to recent population-based study which claimed to find a correlation between diabetes and HFCS availability in different countries. (These sorts of population studies are always notoriously difficult to do well statistically, since there are always a ridiculous number of confounding factors, but I mention it because it's one of the few such things out there.)

      The problem is that these HFCS studies are fighting an uphill battle -- as I said, prior to 2010 there were studies that measured HFCS vs. sucrose and tended to find no significant differences. Which also leads to the question now about whether the Princeton and Utah studies could be an example of publication bias -- we only tend to see them because those studies show an effect which hadn't been observed previously, but perhaps those effects are due to random chance or unintentional changes in study design. (And since HFCS had been branded as bad long before any rigorous scientific evidence was available, there are probably a lot of groups looking for effects... and yet we only have 2-3 studies.)

      Despite what the powerful corn lobby in the US would have you believe, corn is just not all that good for you in large amounts. And with the amount that goes into HFCS, drinking soda pop is getting corn in large amounts.

      Absolutely.

      To be clear: I think HFCS is terrible, and the whole corn growers industry needs to be rethought, since our agricultural subsidies for corn are distorting the economy and

    124. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      "The French must be absolutely pissing themselves, that's probably what gives the stuff its acrid taste." -- Ben Elton

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    125. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      Personaly, I can't wait to vape high fructose corn syrup!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    126. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      HFCS tastes like sugar, only morons would claim it "tastes like ass". It is also engineered to have a balance of fructose to glucose similar to sucrose specifically so it would taste the same.

      Apparently people can quote articles but can't comprehend their contents.

      The key in the article is the evidence that fructose is unhealthier than glucose. That's not proof that HFCS is worse than cane sugar but it suggests that fruit juices are worse than sodas.

    127. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      It very much depends where you live. Some municipal supplies are better than others, and some plumbing is better than others.

      I couldn't drink the tap water unfiltered in my previous house. I moved 2km, and it's great in the new place.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    128. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      More of your religious bullshit. Corn is just not that good for you in large amounts because...?

      HFCS and cane sugar are equally bad for you. It's you that has fallen for nonsense.

    129. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1
      By the way, don't believe me. Refer to the professional scientific consensus:

      FDA:

      Is HFCS less safe than other sweeteners?

      FDA receives many inquiries asking about the safety of HFCS, often referring to studies about how humans metabolize fructose or fructose-containing sweeteners. These studies are based on the observation that there are some differences between how we metabolize fructose and other simple sugars.

      We are not aware of any evidence, including the studies mentioned above, that there is a difference in safety between foods containing HFCS 42 or HFCS 55 and foods containing similar amounts of other nutritive sweeteners with approximately equal glucose and fructose content, such as sucrose, honey, or other traditional sweeteners. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend that everyone limit consumption of all added sugars, including HFCS and sucrose.

      American Heart Association:

      The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends limiting the amount of added sugars you consume to no more than half of your daily discretionary calories allowance. For most American women, that's no more than 100 calories per day, or about 6 teaspoons of sugar. For men, it's 150 calories per day, or about 9 teaspoons. The AHA recommendations focus on all added sugars, without singling out any particular types such as high-fructose corn syrup.

      (FYI -- that daily limit for sugar for men is approximately one 12-oz. can of soda. It's less for women. And that assumes you don't consume ANY added sugars in anything else you eat that day, which is nearly impossible if you consume any processed foods.)

      Review article supported by the American Medical Association:

      Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose is so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose does. . . . At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to ban or otherwise restrict use of HFCS or other fructose-containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. Nevertheless, dietary advice to limit consumption of all added caloric sweeteners, including HFCS, is warranted.

      You can find plenty more things like this if you look, because there are dozens of studies that back up such a position. After decades of looking, we so far have only a handful of studies measuring significant differences with HFCS metabolism. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep looking... but it's important to see those Princeton findings in context.

    130. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Not to mention it's bottled by the same companies like Pepsico and Coke that make soda."

      Exactly that: the article's title "The Decline of 'Big Soda'" makes it sound as if 'Big Soda' companies were somehow endangered.

      They go on saying "sales of full-calorie soda in the United States have plummeted". Well, what about non-full-calorie soda? Is Coca-Cola Light sold by a different company than the "normal" Coca-Cola now?

      "So if people keep drinking water these companies have nothing to worry about."

      Worried? They are delighted! They are basically selling tap water at the same price than soda, obviously making bigger profits.

      There might be something on this news, but certainly nothing that timothy editor has highlighted.

    131. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if the fructose comes from HFCS, sugar, or fruit, it's unhealthy to consume it. ...but fuck you if you say anything bad about fruit, as it is the icon for healthy eating, as it's the only source of addictive fructose that those natural foods types get and they sure as hell don't want to give it up.

      At the risk of stating the obvious, there's a difference between fruit and fruit juice. Juicing has the effect of concentrating the sugar and diluting or removing the parts of the fruit which make it worth eating (e.g. vitamins, fibre, antioxidants if you buy that argument).

      Despite popular belief, trees don't create fruit because they love us and would never do anything to harm us, they're just doing whatever helps them to survive, [...]

      Actually, a lot of fruit is made for us, in that it's the product of many generations of artificial selection. The ones that aren't are usually clones (e.g. grafts) of the small number of varieties that humans like.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    132. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      then one is a certifiable moron!

      There is no law against being a moron, and never will be: 90% of law makers are morons.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    133. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "Is there a single reason why soda companies would WANT people to keep on drinking soda?"

      Well, in fact, there is: soda allows for stronger market recognition. It is obvious for the customer which one is Coca-Cola and which one is 7-Up therefore allowing marketing departments to deploy their fidelity thingies. But then, it's much more difficult to set apart Coca-Cola bottled water from Nestle bottled water and the entry barrier for new competitors becomes also lower. These are things you don't like when you are already a behemoth in that market.

    134. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      I am against allowing companies to use advertising to push people into useless products with huge margins in my country, but not for the US.

      I think a very good argument can be made for both protecting the more naive parts of the public against itself and for having as little intervention of government as possible except to protect the commons. So let different countries have different policies based on the predisposition of their citizens, one size doesn't fit all.

    135. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Tap water hasn't been chlorinated of half a century if not more.

      In which country? Here in London, it is chlorinated heavily. We would all die otherwise. I have an under the sink filter, as my grandfather did before me. Still a slight taste of Chlorine, and some family members won't drink it.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    136. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      More of your religious bullshit. Corn is just not that good for you in large amounts because...?

      Because it's drenched in glyphosates? Because eating a basic foodstuff that is patented is bad economically and morally repugnant?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    137. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      HFCS tastes nasty, though.

      I'm surprised that so few of you have noticed the difference. It's got a treacly, too-sweet flavor with a slightly metallic aftertaste. And,I believe patenting basic foodstuffs is almost criminal. Bad economically, bad for the environment and immoral. So, HFCS is unhealthy for a lot of reasons, in that it's bad for people.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    138. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      HFCS tastes like sugar, only morons would claim it "tastes like ass". It is also engineered to have a balance of fructose to glucose similar to sucrose specifically so it would taste the same.

      So then, why do soda pops made with cane sugar taste so different from the same pop made with HFCS?

      If you take a teaspoon of HFCS (you can buy a bottle at the supermarket) and a teaspoon of sugar and taste them one after the other, you'll see the difference.

      Maybe one of the problems caused by eating too much HFCS is that it dulls your tastebuds? Because if you couldn't tell the difference...well, I'd find that surprising.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    139. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Yep. Water is really cheap, so cheap in fact that about a third of it leaks out of the pipes but most of that isn't worth fixing. Why dig up the road to fix a leak costing you â5/month?

      Source: I work in the industry.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    140. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Not to mention it's bottled by the same companies like Pepsico and Coke that make soda. So if people keep drinking water these companies have nothing to worry about.

      Why would I want those companies to "worry"? They are in the business of safely bottling and efficiently distributing stuff, and they are good at it.

      Not only are you flushing your money down the toilet

      Well, you are not. While you can get the product (water) itself much more cheaply, the value is in the packaging.

      but getting all those empty bottles out of our waste stream would be a great benefit for all of us.

      Water bottles previously existed as oil underground, and they return underground in a less toxic form as plastics. Where exactly do you see the "great benefit" eliminating plastic bottles?

    141. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 1

      It is still the case in Germany, at least partially. Plastic bottles require a deposit, glass bottles don't. You're supposed to drop the glass bottles, sorted by color, in your suburb recycling point. Hobos do check all the trash cans for plastic bottles to return, but they can't cash it in. They receive a voucher for that specific shop. Most shops only take back bottles from their own inventory (based on bar code), but a few accept any bottle.

    142. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by itsenrique · · Score: 1

      Get a bottle brush, or a wide mouth bottle (or both). Metal resists leaching flavors more than plastic. Hydroflask, Lifeline, Kleen Kanteen, those are all good brands. The insulated ones don't sweat.

    143. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Drinking out of ditches is very doable. Clearly you haven't been watching the Walking Dead lately.

      That said, there is really nothing to be gained from buying some other city's tap water from the Coca-Cola corporation. All you're doing is wasting the resources it takes to bottle and ship the same stuff you could get out of your own tap and put into a carafe yourself.

      You could even call it "Carafe d'eau" and say that it's something French and trendy.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    144. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by ruir · · Score: 1

      Honestly the parent posters in this thread seem to be oblivious to the fact that due to the bad rap some ingredients have near consumers, lobbying was made that if they are present in less than x quantities there is no need for them to be on the label. Off the top of my head, aspartame in fruit flavoured water, xylitol and colouring in meats.

    145. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by ruir · · Score: 1

      Yes, why they all taste like some tablets bought at the chemist and people try to pass them as the real deal...Minute maid comes to mind.

    146. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is supposed to be all about informed consumers making rational choices.

      Well, those rational choices can't be made without the information.

      Welcome to the information. Or would you have everyone's right to free speech and the press shredded just to benefit corporations (like ag-gag) laws.

      It's up to the individual to determine what they're going to do once they have all of the information.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    147. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 2

      Several states in the US have it, but the deposit is now laughably low (5 or 10 cents). It is only worth my time to chase the nickels now that I live within walking distance of a grocery store.

      If the deposit were more sensible like a quarter, you'd get a heck of a lot more people returning their beer, water, soda and energy drink containers (unfortunately other beverages escape the requirement, like Snapple and Gatorade).

    148. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      "energy drinks" also tend to have ingredients other than caffeine. Some are also highly fortified. Also, not all energy drinks are full of sugar.

      Not all drink formulations do well with a lot of added sugar.

      They are distinctive enough to be in their own category.

      If anything, they are sort of a revival of the original idea of sodas as patent medicine. They are a bit more creative in terms of the idea of "pep". Whereas the conventional brands are mostly stagnant coasting on 100 year old recipes that have been mutilated for the sake of industrial production and cost cutting.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    149. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > > Along with that, I think somebody should point out that fuit juice is almost as bad as soda.
      >
      > I see you drink Kool-Aid.

      I treat it all the same and view it all as equally dangerous.

      Even soda used to be sold and consumed in small amounts. The classic soda bottle was about as big as the classic juice glass.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    150. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Let me see if I understand this...Republicans are bad

      You are a MORON.

      No one is suggesting that an anti-sugar gestapo be formed here. They're just discussing the facts. I don't even see that many people calling out others for their habits here. They're just laying out the facts.

      If you can't handle the truth, then that's your problem.

      That's the problem with "republicans". They can't handle the truth and they don't want anyone else speaking it lest others hear it. Their dynasty of stupidity might die of natural causes.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    151. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      I mean, forget about the fact that High Fructose Corn Syrup tastes like ass compared to actual cane sugar.

      High fructose corn syrup is about half fructose, half glucose... which makes it pretty much the same as cane sugar. Cane sugar needs to be hydrolyzed to fructose and glucose, but that's a fast process. Whatever differences there are between HFCS and can sugar are academic; both are bad for your health.

    152. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > And by the way, if somebody ever tells you to never consume something that has a chemical name you can't pronounce, they're full of shit

      No they aren't. You should be able to understand what you are eating. Even processed foods don't require ingredients that most people can't pronounce.

      Even the things that are harmless should not be ignored. If you don't recognize it, you shouldn't put it in your body and you should avoid it until you do know what it is.

      Journalists are another matter. If they don't recognize Niacin for what it is when they see it on a food label then they need to just STFU.

      It is NOT a bad idea to understand what you are buying.

      Capitalism only thrives with rational consumers.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    153. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Theovon · · Score: 1

      When you're on the go, and your body doesn't handle soda very well, a bottle of water is nice to get. Yes, we have water filters at home, and lots of people have them at work, but what about when you're on travel? Bottled water is a great way to get some filtered water.

    154. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      And yet, the research.

      Neither of the two papers you refer to show that there is any metabolic difference between HFCS and cane sugar. One paper compares 100% fructose to 100% glucose, the other measures behavioral differences.

      Despite what the powerful corn lobby in the US would have you believe

      "The powerful corn lobby"? It's the US government that is keeping sugar prices artificially high, subsidizing corn production, and promoting corn. Farm subsidies began with the New Deal in 1933, direct farm subsidies were created under Clinton in 1996, and corn ethanol subsidies under Carter in 1978. Progressives justify this crap with economic, social, and environmental "research". That is "the research" you should be concerned about.

      And with the amount that goes into HFCS, drinking soda pop is getting corn in large amounts.

      If you drink enough sweetened sodas that any differences between HFCS and sucrose matter to you, you are drinking too much soda.

    155. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      It's more like saying "Why are you buying 93 octane gas when you can use 87"? Except, saying it that way changes the whole meaning.

      That's dependent on the context, isn't it? If you have a Toyota Camry, you'd be a fool to use anything higher than 87 octane. I have one car that requires a minimum of 89 octane and another that requires 93 octane. Both are stock engines. When I was younger I had a car with 12:1 compression pistons and a high lift cam. It needed 110 octane. In these cases, running 87 octane would be rather stupid as pre-detonation will lose a fair bit of horsepower and is really hard on your engine too.

      I get quarterly water test results from my water company. There's typically some detectable amount of mercury, arsenic, and other crap I'd rather avoid drinking if I can. Yes, it's within what is considered safe levels. But how many "safe levels" have been set because they are simply too difficult or expensive to get any lower? Or don't appear to be a problem within a couple year period? Regardless, tap water just tastes really nasty to me.

    156. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      You see a successfully company being stomped out by liberals, liberals see a company taking from a common resource without paying for it.

      Plenty of product companies - particularly those who directly procure raw materials - take from a common resource w/o directly paying for it. All semiconductor manufacturers for example - at some point get tons of sand, which is then processed into silicon, and then goes through the fabs. It's a similar story in this case - company takes water from common resources - faucets, streams, rivers, whatever, run them through treatment plants and then bottle it. Heck, there was even a case in CA where a city did the same thing to waste water, and recycled it back to customers (albeit w/o bottling it)

      The recycling aspect of this, as ganjadude remarked, is not the company's fault. Different people have different approaches to recycling - some take the effort to separate recyclables, others just pack everything into one trashbag. Regardless, since a lot of people drink their water while on the road, it's the main reason that they would need that. As I mentioned, I scratch my head seeing people buy those things just to stock at home, when a filter would do just as well.

    157. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Where i live, if you sell bottles you HAVE to take them back for deposit and pay in cash. ITs part of the responsibility of selling the product.

      --
      Good-bye
    158. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      A Britta filter should be a great equalizer

    159. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by JillElf · · Score: 1

      Now these soft drinks were speciality drinks, were candy not meant for constant consumption, so they were not targeted towards to being part of your daily diet. Then we get to those silly Baby Boomers who never wanted to grow up..

      The mothers of those Baby Boomers were served up delightful ads in the 1950s making sure that they knew that drinking Coke would make their little darling happy and popular. While they may not have been serving it at at the dinner table, they were encouraged to provide it for after school or, given one illustration that I recall, as soon as the kids stopped sitting in a high chair. It was GOOD for them. Now I'm at the tail end of the Boomers and my own mother made sure that soda was a treat. We could guzzle all the Kool-Aid (with real sugar) we could handle but soda was special. She also bought some seriously nasty sodas (Verner's, Royal Crown) that we hated so we preferred the Kool-Aid or iced tea (sweetened or unsweetened). I suspect that she was not alone. Her favorite trick though was filling the gallon sized bottle water with tap water. We all knew she did it but the kids in the neighborhood never figured it out and swore the bottled water tasted better.

    160. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by TWX · · Score: 1

      Treating tap water as if it were a uniform product worldwide, or even nationwide, is ignorant. There are millions of wells in just the U.S.

      And the well (in reality, river) that my water comes from, as served through my tap, is basically unpalatable. We used to refill from the local quarter-a-gallon RO dispenser but got lazy, and it's a lot easier to buy gallon-bottles of municipal RO-filtered water from the local grocery store, and someone else does the equipment maintenance. I'm not sure if it would be more cost-effective to put in a residential RO system or not, but it's not that hard to go pick up twenty gallons of water to go through them over a few weeks.

      I would be really happy if the water here was as good as where my in-laws live, where it's drinkable right out of the tap at room temperature, but unfortunately it's just bad, even chilled.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    161. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I'm rich enough that I only fill my toilet tanks with the finest imported bottled water. It's only the best for my effluence!

      /quote>

      You jest but let me tell you a story: I was in Austria in a town in the mountains near Linz. I have to say subjectively its the cleanest tap water I've ever put in my mouth. I'm quite sure if I brita filter it the result would be dirtier and taste worse. We went into a restaurant and in strolls this posh snob with a real fur coat and a dog. She sits down orders her food among which is a can of Perrier. We were already thinking this was strange because the tap water which we were drinking was excellent.

      When it arrives, she pours the Perrier bottled water into a bowl and feeds it to the dog.

    162. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      correct..... i know you are trying to argue the opposite, but you are correct here, we shouldnt blame them either

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    163. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by khallow · · Score: 1

      But how many "safe levels" have been set because they are simply too difficult or expensive to get any lower?

      Every single one of them ever - including "safe levels" in your bottled water.

    164. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by sudon't · · Score: 1

      It's also great for cleaning records and filling my humidor! Not sure I've ever tasted it, though.

      Here's what I think of all this: Food is not medicine. I can't understand why people get obsessed about this kind of thing. The only thing I worry about getting from food, or drink, is a delicious taste in my mouth, and maybe a buzz. A little common sense goes a long way.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    165. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Dutchy+Wutchy · · Score: 1

      How can they claim Big Soda is down 25%? Some of their best work is quite recent: http://big-soda.tumblr.com/

    166. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Fine, but don't pass laws specifically targeted to protect morons

    167. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that would be one of the few good reasons to prefer bottled water to filtered tap water

    168. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      HFCS *and* Jack Daniels? Are you trying to punish your body?

    169. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I get mine for less then $0.10 per bottle.

    170. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      HFCS *and* Jack Daniels? Are you trying to punish your body?

      My own extensive, peer-reviewed research proves that the Jack Daniels counteracts the negative effects of the HCFS.

      Until morning.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    171. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      It's not cold, and it's not portable.

      Bottled water isn't about the water, it's about the bottle and the temperature. You can buy a 2 liter soda at room temp for less than a 0.5 L cold for the same reason. I drink tap water at home, but traveling? Yeah, pretty much stuck drinking the bottled stuff.

    172. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Either of these strategies are far better than buying flavored water with weird chemicals added

      I agree with you. However, the best option is to drink just water, and get your nutrients from other sources -- like whole fruits and vegetables, wasting nothing, and getting the entire benefit of the food. ;-)

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    173. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Despite the advertising, Britta is not good enough to make my tap water in any way palatable enough to compete with bottled water.

      Or RO water. We have an RO system, just as good as bottled water, so it suffices, and I use very little bottled water.

      ps - If you do not know what RO is, you're unable to fully participate in this conversation. Read and learn.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    174. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I used to live where tap water was excellent. One place, the water supply was naturally substantially better than any government standard, by a wide margin, the municipal water utility owned outright the ponds used as source. The other place, I was drinking water from the same aquifer as one of the most famous brands of bottled water in the US. A third, from a lake that, while used by motorboats and camps, was the very same aquifer as that famous bottled water brand. Indistinguishable from the bottled stuff.

      Boy, do I miss it. When we go back on vacation, I revel in tap water.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    175. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      No they aren't. You should be able to understand what you are eating. Even processed foods don't require ingredients that most people can't pronounce.

      Unless you're a chemist, then you'll never understand exactly what you're consuming. Ever. Again, look at that ingredient list for natural blueberries. In fact every "natural" food has an ingredient list that will show items I guarantee you that you won't recognize. The whole point of ingredient lists is to help allergy sufferers know what to avoid, that's it; there's no other useful purpose for it.

      In fact, here's a challenge I have for you: Go look at that ingredient list for blueberries and briefly describe to me what you know about each of those chemicals. Don't go to wikipedia, just look that list over and tell me how each of them affects you. Then do it for bananas, tomatoes, potatoes, romaine lettuce, corn, and avacado.

      If you can't, then by your own backwards logic, you personally should never eat a single one of the food items I just listed.

    176. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by nwf · · Score: 1

      Ever used a Britta? They are nearly useless. They filter almost nothing and are similarly high profit items for the filters. They don't even rate them for how well they filter anymore because they are useless. I had a Britta and junked it because it didn't even filter out the chlorine taste. Many other filters are much better and come with detailed performance metrics.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    177. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I think going with organic farming is far more morally repugnant than going with GMO foods. Why? Because organic farming requires a LOT more farmland just to get the same yield, and in case you haven't noticed, the number one reason for deforestation is so that people can clear forest to make room for farmland. Over the last 50 years, new farming techniques have increased the crop yields by 300%.

      Honestly your food religion does MUCH more harm than good. I don't know why you believe that freezing farming methods back in time is somehow the moral high ground; it's very much the opposite. If it were up to you, agricultural science would be stuck in a permanent dark age to please mother Gaia.

    178. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      In fact, to add to my post, if people just threw out ingredients they never heard of, then they'd be throwing out ingredients that are required for our survival but they don't make mention the latest pop culture diet fad book. Take for example lysine, which your body cannot produce, and if you didn't consume any you'd go blind first, and die not long after.

    179. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by nwf · · Score: 1

      No, while sucrose is indeed made up of 50% fructose and 50% glucose, they are joined by a bond. Thus they ARE very different than HFCS. That extra bond changes how the body metabolizes it. Plenty of testing demonstrates this.

      Fructose is indeed found in fruit, but fruit has many other compounds that affect the body.

      Human metabolism is annoyingly complicated.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    180. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Telling people to "buy a decent juicer and some fresh fruit" is as bad of advice as telling them to go drink sodas.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

      Honestly based on your other posts, it's pretty clear you're a devout follower of the food religion that basically throws out all scientific thought in favor of the latest diet fads that would make any hipster blush, and I strongly advise anybody to stay away from your recommendations.

    181. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Although there is a difference between the two, you're full of shit about your claims of how exactly it tastes.

      All sugars have a mix of sweet and sour (two of the six basic flavors.) HFCS has a slightly higher amount of sour due to the slightly higher fructose content. It shouldn't taste "nasty" unless anything with the sour flavor tastes nasty to you. And if it does, then anything with lemon in it should taste absolutely horrible to you.

      But either way, I know you're exaggerating it. Why are you exaggerating it? My guess is because you're a devout follower of the food religion, and whatever the latest pop culture hipster magazine says about it you take as gospel. It's the same reason these idiots think they can "easily" tell the difference between organic and non-organic food, even though in reality they can't tell the difference:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    182. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      Speaking of eating fruit, did you ever get any dragonfruit to grow on your plants?

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    183. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      once again you post
      once again someone has to correct you
      once again you reveal your ignorance

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    184. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      A small grocery shop in town has just installed a commercial juicer. He charges a lot, but it's pure juice and no additives.

      And that stuff is bad for you. A single serving of apple juice made from nothing but apples contains the sugar from around 3 apples (but not the fibre). You then drink the thing in a few minutes (juices don't quench thirst very well, so you tend to drink the entire serving), giving your system a nice sugar shock...

      Face it, if you gobbled down 3 apples in 120 seconds you'd get some pretty odd looks. At least by eating the whole apple you get the fibre to slow the uptake of sugar in your digestive system.

      Fruit juices are the worst thing for your system.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    185. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by jittles · · Score: 1

      Tap water hasn't been chlorinated of half a century if not more.

      In which country? Here in London, it is chlorinated heavily. We would all die otherwise. I have an under the sink filter, as my grandfather did before me. Still a slight taste of Chlorine, and some family members won't drink it.

      I bet they'd drink it if they got thirsty enough!

    186. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      bottled water is now on track to overtake soda as the largest beverage category in two years.

      Everyone should note that for the most part bottled water is just "tap water" that has been filtered. At $1 plus a bottle (plus the almost always not recycled plastic bottle), why don't people just get a Britta filter for home or office? Filtered tap water is now more expensive than soda!

      Two comments
      Our city tap water has a lower bacteria count than does bottled water. In fact, there should be a "Use before" on the labels of each bottle.
      And our city tap water has low chlorine counts. In the 1950's the old cast iron water pipes were replaced with copper, and this has meant that iron(rust) in our water is also very low.

      But in regards to Soda. We bought a Soda Machine (as it is called). Each cartridge provides enough co2 for about 10 "one litre water bottles". Thats a fifty percent savings over the large store purchased club-soda bottles. If we want flavouring, we add it after we bubbly (carbonate) the tap water.

      Where we do use the store bought water bottles is when we are out doing sports at/on the soccer or football fields.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    187. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      How many times around the equator of the earth does the end-to-end placing of water bottles stretch? Some say 3 and others say 4.

      And most of these bottles are ingested by marine life and these marine animals die. The plastic bottles are not biodegradable. If separated out from recycled trash they can be melted down and the ensuing plastic reused.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    188. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by StrangeBrew · · Score: 1

      If you think water from a melting glacier is fresh or clean you haven't watched water melt off a glacier.

    189. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Bottled water made no sense to me either...until it suddenly did.

      When I moved to the city I'm in now, I discovered that the tap water from the faucet left quite a bit to be desired. As I came to find out later from one of the professors working at the university in town, because of the high mineral content in the groundwater around here (she called out sodium in particular) and the way that those minerals interact with the chlorination process, the water ends up having a strong, salty taste. It's perfectly safe to drink, we've been assured, and I've been living in town for long enough that I can muscle my way through a glass of the stuff if I have to, but it tastes absolutely horrible, and if you use it for brewing, it'll ruin an otherwise good tea or coffee.

      I don't go for the Dasani, Aquafina, or Fiji stuff that sells for ludicrous prices, since I completely agree that those make absolutely no sense, but I do go for the 32-pack of store brand stuff that sells for $3.24, and I'm perfectly fine with the fact that it's almost certainly just tap water from a few hundred miles away, since tap water that's not from here is exactly what I want. I also keep a pitcher of Brita-filtered water in the fridge, which doesn't eliminate the salty flavor entirely, but does a good enough job that we can use it for coffee and tea, rather than needing to rely on bottled water for everything.

      Long story short, not all bottled water costs an arm and a leg, there are reasons other than health for why people may drink it, and many of us don't care where it's from, so long as it's not here and it's safe to drink. As for the environment, yeah, it's not good, but as both a cost-saving measure and a green measure, the store-brand stuff has reduced the thickness of the plastic in their bottles by something like 50% in the last year, which makes them super flimsy, but also means that there's that much less plastic in landfills, so at least it's not as bad as it once was.

    190. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by Chas · · Score: 1

      Maybe if you had bottled water, you'd drink it instead of coke and other nasty things.
      Despite popular belief, tap water, even with a Britta, is nothing like bottled water which is actually nice to drink.

      Bullshit.

      Speaking of bullshit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      How does it feel to be sitting at that table, Chas?

      Uh. Maybe you didn't read what I wrote. You are referencing an episode of Penn and Teller's "Bullshit!" where they covered bottled water. And the fact that a significant chunk of the US industry's bottled water comes from municipal sources (aka TAP WATER).

      My "bullshit" was meant to address the person who stated that tap water, even filtered, is "nothing like bottled water".

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    191. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by guruevi · · Score: 1

      1) Marketing / FUD about what is in your tap water
      2) Taste - bottled water is typically filtered better with minimal amounts of bleach added and flavored if not conspicuously with actual flavors, most bottled water also contains high amounts of added sodium (yes, salt-like substances) to make it taste better. The Nestle brands being some of the worst, if I use it for actual hydration after exercise or manual labor, I still feel thirsty.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    192. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but the evidence is also that the BOTTLES leach toxins into the water. Don't forget the environmental impact of bottling water (wherever) trucking it someplace else uses a lot of fuel, and the bottles themselves contribute significantly to the waste stream.

    193. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Or just avoid juice altogether.

      Nah, juice is delicious and there's vitamins and stuff.

      See, most people who make and drink fruit juice aren't drinking 60-ounce Mega-Gulps of them. Have you ever seen the size of a "juice glass"?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    194. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The bottled water did taste better, it had time to degas off the chlorine in the fridge.

      Keep a pitcher of cold water in your refrigerator, it is better than straight from the tap.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    195. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Kind of makes you feel good to litter. Helping the less fortunate.

      Throw down two bottles, feeling generous.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    196. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Salty fizzy water. Blech.

      In Germany they look at you like your crazy when you ask for still ice water.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    197. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      ...epidemy...

      Tiller's rule violation - 5 yard penalty, 1st down.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    198. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Drink company shareholders would probably be fine w/ paper cartons if all else were equal.

    199. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      6.31ug/L is still less than half the WHO's standard for safe water, and is not an unsafe level of exposure.

    200. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      It's not easy money though. Considering there's only one machine of each type, you could spend more than a few minutes waiting. It's pretty easy to reach the threshold where it literally is not worth your time to deal with them.

      Plus I used to have to take the bus to the grocery store that accepted the bottles, meaning it *cost* money to get them recycled that way. The bodega on the corner had all I needed to buy but they damn sure weren't giving away nickels...

    201. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I can easily pick up the plastic taste from the bottled water. The tap water around here tastes much better.

    202. Re:GOOD GRIEF! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Around here the tap water comes out of aquifers. This isn't sustainable (though the problem isn't the residential water usage, it's the agricultural usage), but for the meantime the tap water is very good.

    203. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, bottled water tastes nice and people enjoy it, while people that only use tap water exclusively drink soda and other crap instead.

      Try drinking some actual good bottled water, like San Pellegrino.

    204. Re: GOOD GRIEF! by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Perrier has a unique taste. It's not water, it's Perrier.

  2. The Big Soda loves the decline by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Informative

    Now they are bottling municipal water supply and selling it at the same price as soda. No need to guard recipes, no need to worry about making concentrates... Their profit margin has increased despite the decrease in soda consumption.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:The Big Soda loves the decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, every time there is a natural disaster people buy truckloads of the stuff.

    2. Re:The Big Soda loves the decline by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      Well no, the beverage industry likely doesn't think of it the same way. If you have a proprietary recipe, then you're the only source of that drink, which means you can charge more for it and/or profit the most from it. Meanwhile just anybody can make bottled water, so it's not exactly lucrative.

    3. Re:The Big Soda loves the decline by bigfinger76 · · Score: 2

      They're selling the base material for soda (filtered tap water, requiring only bottling) for more than they sell the exclusive brands, and they sell more units of them too. I guarantee you it's plenty lucrative.

    4. Re:The Big Soda loves the decline by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      same price, hell I can buy a 2ltr of soda for 89 cents, 16oz bottle of water cost a buck on up

    5. Re:The Big Soda loves the decline by Tom · · Score: 1

      Because people are idiots, true.

      At home, you can bottle your own water. Or drink it straight from the faucet. If you're worried about what's in there, there are filter devices and they are reasonably cheap (I use one mostly because calcium carbonate isn't good for the tea cooker).

      For the road, you can bottle water at home, or sometimes buy a bottle. Why not? Yeah, someone makes a profit, but I have something clean to drink, in many holiday locations that's a luxury. And it's better than giving someone a profit for spoiling your health. And there is much more potential for competition, including locally sourced products.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  3. You can have my Jolt Cola by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    When you pry it from my cold dead hands.

    1. Re:You can have my Jolt Cola by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Funny

      When you pry it from my cold dead hands.

      You call that a threat?

      If you're still drinking that shit, believe me, we won't be waiting long to pry it from your cold dead hands.

      Heathen, may you rot in the hell that is reserved for Perrier and Zima drinkers.

    2. Re:You can have my Jolt Cola by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      You know that:
      1. Caffeine is available from other sources.
      2. If you don't take any caffeine, you are just as alert as a frequent caffeine user (after some acclimatization to the low/no caffeine diet). In fact, you average leverl of alertness will be higher than the frequent caffeine ingestor.

      All yo are doing with your jolt Cola is wasting money.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:You can have my Jolt Cola by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Nice of you to be so concerned about your neighbor, St AC. But most of us are perfectly capable of living our own lives, w/o busybodies like you getting in the way.

      So just fuck off!!!

    4. Re:You can have my Jolt Cola by unixisc · · Score: 1

      In return for what is for him a pleasurable experience. Which is worth every bit of what he's paying for it

    5. Re:You can have my Jolt Cola by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      If you drink that much Jolt Cola, the shaking should keep your hands warm long after you're dead.

    6. Re:You can have my Jolt Cola by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Have another Jolt! We'll wait!

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    7. Re:You can have my Jolt Cola by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I've been told that mainlining heroin is also a pleasurable experience, supposedly worth every bit of what you pay for it.

      (I drink coffee and/or tea almost daily, myself. Just pointing out that something that you perceive as "pleasurable" does not automatically make it a good idea.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    8. Re:You can have my Jolt Cola by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Soda doesn't have the same effect on people as heroin, so as long as it's legal, it's none of whoever's business to interfere in what is essentially one's personal taste & preference.

    9. Re:You can have my Jolt Cola by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Soda doesn't have the same effect on people as heroin...

      You apparently did not actually read the OP, I'm guessing.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  4. But they will always have a place in ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... the trunks of police cars. According to widely circulated "facts" about cola one thing I still remember is, "Every police car in America has a two liter bottle of coke in their trunks. It is the best thing to dissolve blood stains off asphalt" and "put a chicken bone into a bottle of coke, and it will dissolve completely in six days"

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:But they will always have a place in ... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      ... the trunks of police cars. According to widely circulated "facts" about cola one thing I still remember is, "Every police car in America has a two liter bottle of coke in their trunks. It is the best thing to dissolve blood stains off asphalt" and "put a chicken bone into a bottle of coke, and it will dissolve completely in six days"

      I doubt Big Soda is excited over the notion of trunk sales for the sole purpose of crime scene cleanup (rebranded as "187 juice"), or chicken voodoo.

      Hey look on the bright side, at least we haven't caught cops masturbating with it.

      (The soda I mean, not the chicken.)

    2. Re:But they will always have a place in ... by sudon't · · Score: 1

      I bet snopes.com has a page dedicated to that, er, fact.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    3. Re:But they will always have a place in ... by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      No. I drove a police car for years and no, we didn't have 2 litre bottles of Coca Cola.

  5. Re:Geeks will always need soda by Rei · · Score: 1

    Cola is hardly the only way to get caffeine.

    --
    The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
  6. Suspicious quote by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

    "There will always be soda, but I think the era of it being acceptable for kids to drink soda all day long is passing, slowly," says Marion Nestle.

    Hmmm, last name Nestle... does she by any chance have a bias toward chocolately drinks?

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    1. Re:Suspicious quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      he might have a point.. look at the ganges..

    2. Re:Suspicious quote by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, last name Nestle... does she by any chance have a bias toward chocolately drinks?

      Make mine Ovaltine, for the malt sweetening

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    3. Re:Suspicious quote by MercTech · · Score: 1

      Well, water isn't an individual right. If you purchase property; it may or may not include water rights. Water is something we all pay for. It may be paid via taxes for municipal water treatment and distribution or by the individual by paying to have a well and pumping system installed.

          Every time I see bottled water I'm reminded of something I remember from a 9th grade civics book.

          "Two earmarks of a third world failed economy are when over 80% of the capital is controlled by less than 10% of the population and the public confidence in the infrastructure is so low that bottled water is actually or perceived as necessary." - Hello 3rd World America

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
  7. Finally, and end to 2nd hand soda by Tehrasha · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am happy as long at keeps people from spitting half swallowed soda in my face at meal times and other social gatherings.

    1. Re:Finally, and end to 2nd hand soda by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      I am happy as long at keeps people from spitting half swallowed soda in my face at meal times and other social gatherings.

      You're not analyzing this correctly. The analog to "second-hand smoke" is obviously second-hand carbonation, a noxious brew of gases emitted from the belching guts of stinky soda drinkers.

      Pretty soon there will be lawsuits from waitresses and bartenders around the globe, complaining about how working in such a noxious environment of belching carbon dioxide will harm their health....

      Oh wait, NO THERE WON'T -- because selling you a soda for $3 with your meal that probably costs the restaurant 5 cents in syrup is one of their biggest profit items. And belching, while sometimes disgusting, is unlikely to cause cancer in people around you.

      So, hmm... maybe there are some differences between smoking and "big soda," no?

    2. Re:Finally, and end to 2nd hand soda by sudon't · · Score: 1

      That would be third-hand carbonation, if your exposure results from contact with the children of soda drinkers. Following the same immutable Laws of Homeopathy that apply to tobacco smoke, third-hand carbonation is many times more deadly than drinking it straight! I'm surprised the media isn't already on top of this.

      (By all means, surprise me with a link)

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

  8. Re:Better to drink from a leaking garbage bag by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Weird to see people complaining about sugar but switching to fruit juice, though. Many if not most fruit juices have a higher sugar concentration than coke.

    Now, that's only from the sugar perspective. Caffeine has its good and bad sides, so if one wants to cut down, there's that. Phosphoric acid may or may not have a negative effect on bone density (lower bone density is associated with soda consumption but there's dispute over whether it's the phosphoric acid or just the aforementioned caffeine). Fruit juices have vitamins and minerals that most colas won't. But really, the biggest health issue with colas is the sugar, and one may actually increase their sugar intake by switching to juice.

    --
    The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
  9. Energy Drinks by darkain · · Score: 2

    In other news, Energy Drink sales are surging with the younger crowds!

    1. Re:Energy Drinks by MacDork · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, this. energy drink and Starbucks. People aren't drinking fewer caffeinated beverages, they're generally drinking stronger ones. Whether it's carbonated or not doesn't really matter.

      My favorite commercial of course, is 5-hour energy. "Get five hours of energy with only 4 calories!" I got a news flash for those guys... calories == energy. No calories means it's a drug, not energy. I wonder if I could sue them for blatantly false advertisements?

    2. Re:Energy Drinks by fropenn · · Score: 1

      Some coffee drinks have a tremendous amount of sugar in them, too. Which, by the way, makes them delicious.

    3. Re:Energy Drinks by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Coffee generally contains a lot more caffeine than so-called energy drinks. Also, yes caffeine is a drug, and that's where (most) people expect the "energy" to come from, so it's not deceptive in that sense. Otherwise, people would just eat food.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

  10. Soda is TOO expensive by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    How hard can it be for soda companies to figure that out.

    $2.79 for a drink for a meal that costs $8???

    McDonalds has the right idea.

    Same thing in the stores. Coke seems to want $4.50/12 pack these days. Other brands want $3.00. So I don't buy coke products anymore even tho I love coke products.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:Soda is TOO expensive by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      How hard can it be for soda companies to figure that out.

      $2.79 for a drink for a meal that costs $8???

      Uh, restaurants DO know this. They also know a LOT of people order drinks with meals anyway. Unlike many food items (where they often get only a thin margin of profit), drinks are where most restaurants make their money.

      That's why it generally costs 3-4 times as much for a bottle of beer to be served to you in a restaurant compared to the cost in a store. That's why you pay $6 for a glass of "house wine" that probably comes from a bottle which costs $6 retail for the entire bottle. That's why you pay $10 for a shot of scotch when the whole bottle might cost $60 and contain 20 drinks of that size.

      The mark up on soda is often even greater. Right now, most people who like to drink soda with a meal will order one when they eat out, even if it's $2-3. If the restaurant charges you 25 cents (maybe less), which is probably what they'd need to charge to make an equivalent profit percentage to what they make on food, they'll only get a few more cheap people buying sodas, and they'll be losing out on a few dollars of profit on every other customer who would've ordered soda anyway.

      Same thing in the stores. Coke seems to want $4.50/12 pack these days. Other brands want $3.00. So I don't buy coke products anymore even tho I love coke products.

      Even for that, it's pretty high-priced sugar water.

    2. Re:Soda is TOO expensive by unixisc · · Score: 1

      But a lot of the mark up builds into it those 'free refills'. You can fill up your glass of coke as many times as you like as long as you're in the store. Most companies know that typically, that number will be 2, which is what they build into the price of the drink.

    3. Re:Soda is TOO expensive by tomhath · · Score: 1

      which is what they build into the price of the drink.

      A cup of soft drink from a dispenser costs almost nothing, a few cents at most. The price they charge is what people will pay.

    4. Re:Soda is TOO expensive by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Price was what first drove me away. Price does affect purchasing decisions. does damp down the desire for mildly addictive substances. Works for cigarettes and alcohol.

      Improved health is a nice bonus, and now, having learned how unhealthy refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup is, I wouldn't take soda even if it was free. Ironically, many of these drinks were originally promoted for their health effects. Coke was created for pain relief. Carbonation itself was thought to have good effects on health.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    5. Re:Soda is TOO expensive by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      I worked in the restaurant industry. The soda costs the store about 2 cents per glass. The rest is markup.

      It allows them to lower the food cost (which has very little profit).

      Spirits have a high markup but not as high as soda.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    6. Re:Soda is TOO expensive by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I've never had a "knockoff" coke that didn't taste like swill. Even the best is equivalent to "new coke" or "diet coke".

      Actually, I was looking pretty hard-- checking kroger, heb, and randalls each week. While competitors regularly charged 25 cents per 12 oz can, coke went thru a nearly 9 month period where they were $4.50 per 12 (about $37 cents per can). Pent up demand was so high that when it started going on sale again, people stripped the shelves within hours each day.

      Perhaps it was a regional test to see if people would adjust to the new price and start buying it again. From the reaction, I think it failed.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  11. No, drinking soda != smoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When people drink soda, they don't blow toxic and disgusting smelling fumes into people's walkways, they don't leave butts all over the ground, and they don't return from a smoke break smelling like an ashtray.

    Chuck, I'm going with, "No, drinking soda isn't the new smoking."

    1. Re:No, drinking soda != smoking by narcc · · Score: 1

      Ever been around a heavy soda drinker? It's pretty gross. It's not just the sticky bottles and cans they scatter all over, or even the sticky rings they slosh over every flat surface. A little education could bring that down to an acceptable level. Nothing, sadly, can be done about the weird smell that the leave on whatever they sit on. It's like a nasty fart smell that doesn't go away. I've had to wipe down my chair with bleach wipes after one of those obnoxious sugar guzzlers abused it before I could even stand to be near the thing. It was hours before I could sit on it again.

      Don't even get me started on their belch spittle and unimaginable halitosis. It's disgusting. Imagine a mix of puke and axe body spray that they vomit all over everything they're near. .

      I say we bring the smokers back just to cover up the stench.

    2. Re:No, drinking soda != smoking by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      What you describe has more to do with being grotesquely overweight than drinking soda.

    3. Re:No, drinking soda != smoking by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Plenty. The issue is overeating.

    4. Re:No, drinking soda != smoking by narcc · · Score: 1

      Let me guess: You're one of those misguided soda addicts out to defend your disgusting habit? You can quit anytime you want but claim to "enjoy it"? You tell yourself "it's not as bad as people think" because you once heard about a life-long two-cases-a-day pop-drinking grandmother who lived to be 102 with nary a health problem? You're not "one of those" inconsiderate drinkers that leave sticky rings all over the place? That's not your ant-infested collection of empty cans littering the streets? I'll be you even think most soda drinkers are clean and respectful!

      When I watch one of you chug down a 32oz Big Gulp, all I see is a junkie pushing a needle in to their veins...

      It can be difficult to tell a meth user from a soda drinker. This is your future, if it's not already your reality...

    5. Re:No, drinking soda != smoking by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You sure do make it easy to spot the moral authoritarians who want to police everything because "reasons." Especially things that offend your delicate sensibilities.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:No, drinking soda != smoking by narcc · · Score: 1

      Thanks! You sure do make it easy to spot individualists who don't understand satire. Especially things that offend your delicate sensibilities.

    7. Re:No, drinking soda != smoking by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I have to clean beer cans, tea and water bottles off my streetside lawn occasionally. Soda bottles and cans, almost never. It looks to me as if the soda drinkers are the responsible people.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:No, drinking soda != smoking by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Uhm, I'm one of the soda "addicts" (I like the taste of Diet Coke). I have a stack of diet coke bottles near our fridge just for me and people can tell that I'm at my desk by the sound of opening Coke cans.

      Yet my desk is clean, I don't have a single sticky ring or stain on it. I'm not overweight (anymore, wooh!) and I walk for 15 kilometers every day (thanks, Fitbit!). So please, check your stereotypes.

    9. Re:No, drinking soda != smoking by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      If that was satire, you need to work on your delivery. Especially since it didn't offend my delicate sensibilities, rather you offended the intelligence of everyone else.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:No, drinking soda != smoking by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This.

      I'm a militant anti-smoker. I hate it, I avoid places that still allow smoking, and if they do so in break of current anti-smoking legislation, I bring them to the attention of authorities. I've never had a smoking GF and crossed off many potential candidates from the list because of their addiction.

      All that said, you can smoke all you want, for all I care, and slowly kill yourself, if you find a way to do it without affecting anyone else who didn't consent to being gassed.

      Drinking soda might be unhealthy, but it's not smelly, it doesn't turn people into nervous wrecks if they haven't had one for a day and it doesn't force itself on people around you. I can't tell if someone drank a coke in a room when I come in one hour later. I can tell if someone smoked in their car even if they stopped half a year ago and gave it a very solid cleansing. I can smell if one person is smoking somewhere in the same room in a public space. If you know anything about biology, you understand that if you can smell it, it means toxic levels are reached and the stink is your bodies way of telling you to get the hell out of there.

      Drinking soda isn't the "new smoking". The two things are not even on the same level.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    11. Re:No, drinking soda != smoking by narcc · · Score: 1

      Oh, get a grip. This whole thread is nothing but moral outrage over soda. It's absolutely ridiculous, from top to bottom. If you're taking this nonsense seriously, regardless of what "side" you fall on, you're the one with the problem.

    12. Re:No, drinking soda != smoking by Tom · · Score: 1

      Nope, I didn't.

      There are many toxic gasses we can't smell, or only in very high concentrations, and many pungent smells that are not harmfull by themselves (but point to harmful sources, e.g. the smell of something rotting is just a pointer you might stay away and definitely not eat it).

      But for a lot of substances, smell actually is a good indicator of whether or not you should take a deep breath.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    13. Re:No, drinking soda != smoking by sudon't · · Score: 1

      They ban smoking indoors, remove all the ashtrays, then people whine about that.

      But, I think what the OP meant when asking whether soda were the "new smoking" is, have people been shamed into quitting by a consensus that's been reached, mostly through reports in the media, that soda is awful? In that sense, I think it's decent comparison. The attempt at social engineering wasn't quite so deliberate, or concerted, in this case, but it's been effective.
      I think another aspect of this is that it's part of the trend of over-protectiveness we see in parents nowadays. The fears are mostly around giving it to children, and parents have to worry they'll get dirty looks if their kids are seen drinking it. And certainly this attitude influences the way people think about soda for themselves, as well.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    14. Re:No, drinking soda != smoking by mjwx · · Score: 1

      When people drink soda, they don't blow toxic and disgusting smelling fumes into people's walkways, they don't leave butts all over the ground, and they don't return from a smoke break smelling like an ashtray.

      Chuck, I'm going with, "No, drinking soda isn't the new smoking."

      Just apply Betteridge's law of headlines.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    15. Re: No, drinking soda != smoking by Tom · · Score: 1

      No, you just ignored the context. What I posted was in the context of tobacco smoke. If the topic would've been poison gas or chemical factory accidents, I wouldn't have posted like that.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    16. Re:No, drinking soda != smoking by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should get a grip. Or do you enjoy the idea of people restricting your rights to be able to do something because xyz group is butthurt that someone else is doing it. If you refuse to defend something, then someone will simply come along and take it away from you. A good example: The ITU and their "cyber-violence" report. Which contained woe-as-me damsel-in-distress from actual abusers, and the attempted push to silence people because of hurt feelings.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  12. Natural byproduct of government growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When you inject government into healthcare, then anything you do which affects (or is thought to affect by some "expert") healthcare costs becomes the business of government. Why do you think the government just required all physicians to switch to a new set of tens of thousands of medical codes??? Now, when somebody gets medical treatment for a dog bite, the government will get the stats on not just the total number of dogbites, but it will be broken-down by breed. There is NO REASON to waste time and resources collecting data with this granularity if the information will not be used. This data will enable regulations.

    Government healthcare involves government, which is run by politicians who are obviously political, therefore it becomes political. It is impossible to control the costs of things which are political, because special interests always interfere to block the best controls. The politicians therefore, in a need to try to sustain such systems, will grasp at the things they can manage to do which will tend to be annoyances to the masses rather than big things that affect particular narrow interest groups. Thus, cigarettes, sodas, and burgers will be attacked to some degree, but not pot or vodka or steak etc depending on the political "heat" that will result (mostly among the political donor class) rather than on actual science. Oh, and individual liberty will have to be jettisoned; the people cannot be left to make their own decisions about their own lives.

    1. Re:Natural byproduct of government growth by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Mod this up. Not just that, now that government are in the healthcare business, they now get involved w/ the costs as well, and get to regulating tobacco, sodas, burgers and anything else they feel like regulating

    2. Re:Natural byproduct of government growth by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      The more they control, the more they get to control.

  13. Plummet????? by robi5 · · Score: 2

    This language is being hyperboled away as we speak; the meaning of words are inflated away. A 25% decrease over 20 years? That's an annual decrease of a measly 1.1%! What's the word then to use for what happened to the Volkswagen stock?

    Nah, the expression to be used would be: 'slowly eroding, culminating in a 25% decrease over the past 20 years that some observers[who?] consider significant.'

    1. Re:Plummet????? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      What's the word then to use for what happened to the Volkswagen stock?

      Evaporate.

    2. Re:Plummet????? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

      It's a real phenomena: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    3. Re:Plummet????? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Soda - a luxury product as it's not a necessity and there's the much cheaper alternative of tap water - down 25% while the population overall has increased a lot in size, and has become a lot richer within that same period.

      Maybe not plummet, but a serious decline, and a decline that should worry any manufacturer.

  14. Re:Decline of Soda?, Two words.. by Rei · · Score: 1

    Shudders why? Unless you have phenylketonuria, it's not relevant, and if you do, then it's just one entry in a long list of things you should probably avoid. Aspartame decomposes in the digestive system to aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. The amount of methanol is comparable to that in wines and fruit juices, the aspartic acid is far lower than is found in most dietary sources, and the phenylalanine is comparable to common dietary sources and less than many phenylalanine-rich dietary sources.

    --
    The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
  15. Even if it isn't some blend by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most fruit juices have a lot of sugar. Fruit contains a lot of fructose, water, and fiber. So squeeze out the water that contains the fructose, the fiber gets left behind, and you have something that is by volume and weight a tons of sugar.

    Apple juice is a good example. If you go and have a look at the Simply Apple stuff at a grocer you can see easily. It really is 100% pure apple juice. They don't add any sweetener or anything else, they just squeeze the juice out of apple and bottle that shit up... and it is as high calorie as soda. 180 calories per 12 oz (355ml). For comparison Pepsi is 150 and Mountain Dew is 170.

    I love apple juice, it tastes fantastic, but you can't fool yourself in to thinking that because it is juice it is magically good.

    1. Re:Even if it isn't some blend by asylumx · · Score: 1

      the fiber gets left behind

      To me, this is the important point. Not only does it have all the negatives of most sodas, but it also does not have the benefit that eating the fruit does even though they advertise it as such. Glad to see this thread on this topic because people like to blame sodas but they aren't really any different than most of the options touted as "healthy."

    2. Re:Even if it isn't some blend by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      They are a little different in that they have about 9.5% simple sugars by volume, whereas soda is somewhere around 15%+ (depends on the soda.) But still, the calories mostly just come from the simple sugars, and if you were to consume the same amount of calories found in juice as you would otherwise get from a smaller amount of soda (which it seems that this is what most people do) then there's no effective difference.

    3. Re:Even if it isn't some blend by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Most fruit juices have a lot of sugar. Fruit contains a lot of fructose, water, and fiber. So squeeze out the water that contains the fructose, the fiber gets left behind, and you have something that is by volume and weight a tons of sugar.

      Apple juice is a good example. If you go and have a look at the Simply Apple stuff at a grocer you can see easily. It really is 100% pure apple juice. They don't add any sweetener or anything else, they just squeeze the juice out of apple and bottle that shit up... and it is as high calorie as soda. 180 calories per 12 oz (355ml). For comparison Pepsi is 150 and Mountain Dew is 170.

      I love apple juice, it tastes fantastic, but you can't fool yourself in to thinking that because it is juice it is magically good.

      In NZ back in the 1980s I literally could not buy orange juice in the shops. It was *all* apple and orange juice. All juices in the shops were apple based.
      They probably still are but can get away without saying it, just saying "Orange juice. Made with 100% real juice!!!" Its true and false at the same time :)

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    4. Re:Even if it isn't some blend by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Heh heh. A girlfriend once asked why I rarely eat fruit. My response was "Fruit is nature's candy bar."

    5. Re:Even if it isn't some blend by crispytwo · · Score: 1

      I love apple juice, it tastes fantastic, but you can't fool yourself in to thinking that because it is juice it is magically good.

      Of course you can. People are constantly fooling themselves with all sorts of assumptions and dumb ideas. There is no end to it really.

      Sadly, people will think something like this is progress.

    6. Re:Even if it isn't some blend by antdude · · Score: 1

      For the sugary drinks, just add water to dillute them. Yes, they will taste worse. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    7. Re:Even if it isn't some blend by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Fruit juices contain a different balance of simple sugars than sodas and that balance makes them worse. Fructose is a liver killer.

    8. Re:Even if it isn't some blend by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I'm glad that someone else brought this up because I know of a transplant patient that tried to subsist on orange juice and was told by his doctors that he would kill his liver that way.

      At some time or another you end up in a position where you are lucky if you can just get liquids down.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:Even if it isn't some blend by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      And so we are left with the reality that we should be drinking mostly water.

      Which pisses me off. I want flavor.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    10. Re:Even if it isn't some blend by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --$STD-DISCLAIMER: I have no affiliation, etc, just a satisfied customer, but I've been using the "Great Value" powdered drink mixes from Walmart with a standard-sized bottled water to good effect.

      --I find it hard to drink just plain water, I need the flavor as well. They sell a good grape-energy drink that has slowly been replacing Mountain Dew for me; most of their drink mix is low-sugar, as well. FYI

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    11. Re:Even if it isn't some blend by Camembert · · Score: 1

      Always the apple fanboys on slashdot!

  16. No by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    I heard sitting at your desk instead of doing a standing desk is the new smoking.

    1. Re:No by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you're just cracking wise, but just in case you're not, let me tell you that I bought a motorised desk last year, and now spend about 30-40% of my work day standing. My back trouble has all but disappeared.

      It's not so much a standing-versus-sitting thing as it is a not-staying-in-the-exact-same-position-9-or-10-hours-a-day thing.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  17. I get my soft drink cravings by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

    ...but I drink club soda, all the bubbles, none of the sugar, acid or caffeine.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
    1. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Carbonic acid forms in carbonated water. Your body creates its own carbonic acid to transport carbon dioxide through your bloodstream and to your lungs, where it is reacted back to gaseous CO2 and Hydrogen. Adding more of that to your system probably isn't good; and that's the more immediate issue with soda consumption.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    2. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      That's fine, but I'd be really surprised if the phosphoric acid that's in Coke appears in club soda.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    3. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      I cant find it affordably priced in the west (Vegas, San Jose, Phoenix). In Chicago burbs I'd find flavoured soda (no sugar, no sodium) in raspberry, orange, lemon, lime for under 90 cents per 2 liter bottle. All I can find are 1L over $1.25 and usually artificially sweetened (aspartame gives me migraine headaches that last for hours). Hell, I cant even find the more expensive Canfields soda waters on Froogle

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    4. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      It's still not known whether phosphoric acid ingestion actually causes any problems. It could well aid digestion, but nobody has done a credible study either way. In any case, phosphoric acid travels through your digestive tract and exits your body along with the rest of your waste.

      Carbonic acid, on the other hand... Your body expels *that* in the form of CO2 and H2 before expelling the CO2 it creates through its own means, leading to acidification of the blood.

      Soda may or may not be worse, but you're not doing yourself the favor you think you are.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    5. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Maybe a soda siphon would help?

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    6. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      looks like the cost for "chargers" could end up being expensive. Syrup looks to be pretty reasonable (about $13.50/gal with a 4Gal purchase), I bought a sodastream and an adapter for paint-ball CO2 cartridges (refill for a couple bucks at Sports Authority) but it doesn't seal quite right and I have to unmount the cart after each use. Plus you have to fill the bottle with carbonated water, THEN add the flavouring, a PITA.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    7. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Human body is EXTREMELY good at regulating the amount of carbonic acid in blood. It uses a process called "breathing" for that.

      "Carbonic acid" is just another name for dissolved CO2.

    8. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by BronsCon · · Score: 2
      Carbonic acid is not just another name for dissolved CO2, it is H2CO3, an actual molecular bond between H2O and CO2. Your cells deposit it into your blood and it is reacted back into CO2 and H2O (I misspoke when I said hydrogen earlier) in your lungs, to be exhaled.

      Carbonic acid is an intermediate step in the transport of CO2 out of the body via respiratory gas exchange. The hydration reaction of CO2 is generally very slow in the absence of a catalyst, but red blood cells contain carbonic anhydrase, which both increases the reaction rate and dissociates a hydrogen ion (H+) from the resulting carbonic acid, leaving bicarbonate (HCO3) dissolved in the blood plasma. This catalysed reaction is reversed in the lungs, where it converts the bicarbonate back into CO2 and allows it to be expelled. This equilibration plays an important role as a buffer in mammalian blood.

      Adding additional carbonic acid to your system in sufficient quantities (as in drinking only or primarily carbonated beverages) stresses your lungs they try to decompose the excess.

      Don't feel bad about not knowing this, it's new information to me, too. It also explains why I run out of breath walking up 2 flights of stairs after drinking a large soda when I otherwise have excellent stamina and doctors say there is nothing wrong.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    9. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

      Do what the soda fans do and make your own. All you need is a CO2 tank and some hoses and fittings. Then you can use any 2-liter bottle to make more soda water whenever you want, basically for free once you've bought the stuff to make it.

      Plenty of how-to videos on Youtube. Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Sig for hire.
    10. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      CO2 in your body is transported by red blood cells, not by "hydro carbons".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      You don't burp after drinking soda (club or cola)? Do you have evidence that respiratory and even circulatory system needs to get involved in getting rid of the CO2 , and digestive system is incapable of doing so in its own?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    12. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Your cells process carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen into carbonic acid, which your red cells carry to your lungs, which then process it back into carbon dioxide and water vapor to be exhaled. You didn't actually think gaseous CO2 traveled through your veins, did you? You must also think gaseous oxygen flows alongside your red and whites; try injecting a bubble of it and let me know how that works out. Actually, don't, you'll most likely die from it.

      Your body converts basically everything it uses to a different form depending on whether it is transporting it, using it, or storing it. Carbon dioxide is no different.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    13. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Of course I burp, loud and proud most of the time even. That's how the dissolved CO2 escapes. The reacted CO2, on the other hand... You know, the carbonic acid... You don't just belch that out. And your body has a disposal method fornit that doesn't involve piss or shit, so it traverses the large intestine and enters the blood stream.

      It doesn't matter much if you're just sitting on the couch, you'll exhale it as if nothing happened. But, if you're active at all, you'll tire or run out of breath quicker. Carbonated drinks are a real stamina killer and I avoid them for at least a few hours before any sort of strenuous activity. It took me years to realize that they were the cause of my diminishing stamina and, even after that, I still can't give them up entirely.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    14. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I know how the body works, at least regarding red blood cells, should have been obvious from my previous post.
      So no: there is no noticeable carbon acid in my body, there migt be traces in the cells itself. As soon es it touches blood, the red blood cells pick it up, more prcisely: the dissolved CO2 is forcing the hamoglobin in the red blood cells to release the O2 in exchange for the CO2.
      Actually you learn stuff like this in school
      So no need to try to teach us with your half assed half wrong ideas how you think it works.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      You ever think what you learn in high school might be simplified somewhat? What's the point of learning anything beyond that? How do you think red cells carry O2 and CO2? They aren't little gas canisters, they carry it as part of another molecule.

      Look beyond gradeschool textbooks and learn something. Please, don't just take my word for it (or, as in this case, dismiss the information because it disagrees with the oversimplification your learned in health class), do some research for yourself and realize that my understanding isn't incorrect, yours is incomplete.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    16. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      They aren't little gas canisters, they carry it as part of another molecule
      No idea why you imply always nonsense like "little gas canisters".
      In my previous post I made pretty clear that both O2 and CO2 are bound to hemoglobin, the molecule/protein with lots of iron in it that actually gives the blood the red colour.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re: I get my soft drink cravings by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you failed to recognize the chemical process by which the binding takes place.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    18. Re:I get my soft drink cravings by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      CO2 and water are in an equilibrium. One in a thousand CO2 molecules will form carbonic acid with water. If the dissolved CO2 has escaped, the equilibrium has that many less CO2 molecules to play with, so one in a thousand out of much fewer CO2 molecules will form carbonic acid now. The carbonic acid that already exists, will escape after burping (equilibrium, remember?), but it can take a few minutes - equilibrium can be attained within 5 minutes. But this time is insufficient to get the carbonic acid to be absorbed into your bloodstream.

      Unless you are a super pressurized container, carbonic acid remaining in your gut is a very small fraction of what you are creating through respiratory/metabolic process when you are "active". 4% of all your exhaled air could be CO2 - a litre of cola pales in comparison.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    19. Re: I get my soft drink cravings by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Okay, that's an explanation I can get behind, thanks for the info. Can you tag in on the other branch of this thread and correct the misconceptions and high-school-health-class-level oversimplifications being spouted there?

      Always happy to learn something new, thanks again!

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  18. Not in my house by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Funny

    I just finished installing a 6 head soft drink fountain dispenser next to the playroom. It's gonna be carbonated drinks as far as the eye can see.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Not in my house by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      You laugh...but I have a teen daughter. The idea is that a "cool" house is where the kids will want to hang out. Movie screen and large movie collection, playroom with sofas, bean bags, and cushy carpet, fountain drinks, espresso bar with all the trimmings - you name it. I'd rather have them party it up at my place than somewhere else.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  19. No by rossdee · · Score: 1

    I don't drink water, I drink a mixture of 50% pop (Mt Dew, Mello Yello or sun drop) and 50% Gator Ade (Lemon-Lime)

  20. Re:Geeks will always need soda by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    I hope so, since so few "colas" have any cola nut in them. They're just malt or prune sodas with lots of "flavorings."

    Real colas are often low caffeine, like an old-fashioned root beer.

  21. Coca Cola by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fructose sweetener. Forget it.

    Switch back to cane sugar. Fuck the sugar cartel. Throw them all in prison.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Coca Cola by PPH · · Score: 1

      HFCS isn't sugar.

      The sugar cartel is why cane sugar costs so much in the US market. And why food manufacturers turn to alternatives like HFCS.

      But most consumers vote with their wallet.

      Right. Because our market for sweeteners is being tampered with. Level the market and let consumers vote.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Coca Cola by Megane · · Score: 1

      I gave up that regular Coke years ago for Diet Coke, after a particularly bad tasting case of cans. I actually kind of like the aspartame flavor. Then I gave that up for gold Coke (caffeine-free diet), which is pretty good to have every now and then, without the headaches three days later to punish me for not drinking it for too long.

      I still don't get what it is with Coke Zero, though. I had a chance to try some recently, and it tasted pretty bad.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Coca Cola by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      That is actually available. The glass bottles of "Mexican Coke" you see everywhere taste different because they used Cane Sugar. But those are only sold in 12 Oz sizes.

      Pepsi is better. There's 20 Oz, in Cherry, Vanilla, and standard. Sometimes there's 12 packs of cans. In theory they're "Limited Time" items, but avaliaboilty around Cleveland has been going up.

    4. Re:Coca Cola by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Switch back to cane sugar. Fuck the sugar cartel. Throw them all in prison.

      You do realize it's not the fault of a "sugar cartel," but rather our crazy agricultural subsidies in the U.S., right? If we weren't encouraging so many people to grow corn to make corn syrup, it wouldn't be as cheap, and cane sugar or beet sugar would likely be more widely used. These subsidies of corn production also arguably led to the U.S. crazy of adding corn syrup to everything, even plenty of food products that have no need of sweetener... but corn syrup is easy to blend and shelf stable, so why not?

      It's the politicians you should be blaming. (Not that it makes a huge difference nutritionally -- the amount of sugar in Coke is terrible, whether it's made from cane or corn.)

    5. Re:Coca Cola by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Mountain Dew Throwback

      Unfortunately its only in cans

    6. Re:Coca Cola by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      HFCS isn't sugar.

      Wow. Talk about failing reading comprehension. High Fructose Corn Sugar.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    7. Re:Coca Cola by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I recently tried Coke "Life", Coke sweetened with sucrose and stevia. Doesn't taste as bad as Diet Coke, but it doesn't taste good.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:Coca Cola by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The US use of corn sugar in soda predates the ethanol mandates by decades. US cane sugar growers lobbied Congress for high tariffs on sugar in order to beat down foreign competition. In the end, they lost, because high domestic cane sugar prices led to corn sugar being used in sodas. Still, if you buy sugar in a supermarket or baked goods, you're paying the added price caused by sugar import tariffs.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    9. Re:Coca Cola by chihowa · · Score: 1

      HFCS stands for High Fructose Corn Syrup, as even the most cursory search will reveal. Talk about failing reading comprehension. Wow.

      "Sugar", while being a generic term for any sweet carbohydrate (like "salt" refers to any ionic compound, but usually means NaCl), generally refers to "table sugar" or sucrose (which HFCS doesn't contain). The disaccharide sucrose is biochemically different from the monosaccharides that it is made from. Claiming otherwise is almost as ignorant as claiming that table salt is dangerous because it is made of explosive sodium and corrosive chlorine.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    10. Re:Coca Cola by PPH · · Score: 1

      The fructose is the reason people can drink Cola and not keel over and die in a few minutes.

      So glucose intolerant then. Get your diabetes taken care of, watch your diet (maybe just stay away from pop altogether and lose some weight) and don't expect 90% of the population to make compromises for you special snowflakes.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  22. ONLY if your are a MINDLESS TWIT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Get real and get a life your pathetic socialist loser!!!! Busy bodies with nothing to do with their pathetic lives but to wine about some one else's lifestyle. Go smoke your dope, drink your little drink, and dance the night away rather than piss on yourself with crap like this.

  23. Re:Decline of Soda?, Two words.. by narcc · · Score: 1

    Shudders why?

    Because they all taste terrible.

  24. I prefer my soda flat. by sims+2 · · Score: 1

    Since no one else has mentioned it.
    Most sodas are better flat than they are fizzy. Imho.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  25. Probably the #1 cause of diabetes by kheldan · · Score: 4, Informative

    I woudn't at all be surprised if drinking sugary sodas is the number one cause of diabetes. Additionally, most artificial sweeteners really aren't all that great for you, either, if for no other reason than they don't break you of the habit of drinking sweet drinks all the time. People who live that way need to bite the bullet and drink nothing but WATER (the kind out of the tap that's free, not stupid overpriced bottled water!) for at least a year. Then they can have a soda once in a while.. assuming it's cane sugar-sweetened, not HFCS, not aspartame, not sucralose. In my opinion, stevia is OK, but as with most things YMMV. But everyone needs to get out of the habit of swilling sodas all the time and drink WATER instead. You'll be healthier and happier in the long run, and have more money in your pocket, too. In my opinion.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Probably the #1 cause of diabetes by maztuhblastah · · Score: 1

      Then they can have a soda once in a while.. assuming it's cane sugar-sweetened, not HFCS, not aspartame, not sucralose. In my opinion, stevia is OK, but as with most things YMMV.

      Or, since aspartame and sucralose are both GRAS (the former after decades of intense scrutiny), have a soda as often as you'd like provided it's a sugar-free one.

    2. Re:Probably the #1 cause of diabetes by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I woudn't at all be surprised if drinking sugary sodas is the number one cause of diabetes.

      That's just because you're ignorant and don't realize that you don't cause it in any way due to how much sugar you intake, but go on continue being stupid and using that as an excuse to try and control the behavior of others.

      Get a clue before you make such ignorant statements. Sugar intake itself has no effect in causing diabetes, and the problem is never too much sugar, it's not enough. Don't mention diseases you've got no clue at all about.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Probably the #1 cause of diabetes by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Excessive meat consumption is the leading cause.

      Oh really? Let's see here.. 'TED talks' don't mean a thing, by the way. But I did research 'red meat consumption' and 'diabetes' and came up with an article about some actual research that had this to say:

      âoeThe final proof in humans will be much harder to come by,â Varki said. âoeBut on a more general note, this work may also help explain potential connections of red meat consumption to other diseases exacerbated by chronic inflammation, such as atherosclerosis and type 2 diabetes.

      So let's summarize: They genetically modify some mice, then feed them insane amounts of some sugar molecule that is found in red meat, and lo-and-behold! They get weird tumors and stuff. How amazing! But note the wording there: "The final proof in humans will be much harder to come by.." "this mayalso help explain.." Nothing is proven yet. By the way if you're a vegetarian or vegan then I question your motives.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    4. Re:Probably the #1 cause of diabetes by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Having scanned through a few pages of your recent comments, you're clearly a negative person who likes to start arguments for the sake of starting arguments, and furthermore insults people just to rile them up, and as such nothing you say to me is worth responding to; please bugger off.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  26. Regulation for thee, not for me by reemul · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The nannystate regulators who ban soda because of the high calories are curiously prone to carve out exceptions for drinks containing dairy. They're very concerned about the health of those other people drinking cokes from large cups, but not about to start interfering with their own consumption of ridiculously high calorie Starbucks coffee-based concoctions. It's a class based prejudice, the wrong sorts of people can't be trusted to organize their own affairs while us enlightened folks need no restrictions whatever. As always with the leftists, it's about control, not about health.

    --
    You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
    1. Re:Regulation for thee, not for me by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      It's a beverage that's very addictive and very unhealthy. Coffee is simply not as abused or as unhealthy. You don't see people walking around with one litter cups of coffee. Sode is causing a major health crisis in the country. That is why we see regulation. It's also worth pointing out that all classes of people from low to ruling class drink coffee and soda both. This isn't class based prejudice; it's pure paranoia and your political prejudice.

    2. Re:Regulation for thee, not for me by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      own consumption of ridiculously high calorie Starbucks coffee-based concoctions.

      Starbucks serve coffee now? :)

    3. Re:Regulation for thee, not for me by captjc · · Score: 1

      no, coffee-based. It is for people who like a little coffee in their chocolate milkshakes served hot.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    4. Re:Regulation for thee, not for me by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Calories from fat =/= calories from sugar. And lactose =/= fructose. Granted many dairy products also have a lot of fructose, but at least it's not half the calories.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    5. Re:Regulation for thee, not for me by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      You don't see people walking around with one litter cups of coffee

      Give it a year. Starbucks' large is 24oz for hot drinks. 30 something for cold. The sizes on "coffees" (how much sugar do you think is in the average beverage sold at starbucks?) is also going up. Especially with the more common use of large travel mugs to keep them hot.

  27. Pop actually ticks me off by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    I hate when I am grabbing a snack and it comes with a "free" drink and that drink turns out to be pop. So yes I pretty much see it as getting a free "gift" with some purchase and it turns out to be cigarettes. I am insulted when people on the street ask if I have a cigarette, and I am insulted when I tell guests to grab anything they want out of my fridge and they then ask if I have pop. I have to restrain myself from saying, "Do I look like an idiot?"

    So while I never thought about it pop is sort of the new cigarette, except that I don't care if other people in the theater/plane/street/etc are drinking it. In that way, to each their own.

    1. Re:Pop actually ticks me off by MassacrE · · Score: 1

      I am insulted when I tell guests to grab anything they want out of my fridge and they then ask if I have pop.

      Sounds like you have an issue if you tell them to grab anything they want, and then you get upset if what they want is pop. Perhaps you should phrase your offer differently

    2. Re:Pop actually ticks me off by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      I didn't say, "Wish upon a magic star as to what you will find in my fridge." I effectively said, "From the selection that is presented upon opening my fridge choose any number of drinkable items that will satiate your thirst. If the options presented are not sufficient or do not meet your taste requirements then keep your pie hole shut as I don't want to hear it."

  28. Meh... trends come and go. by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    Right now, it's just the in thing to avoid soda. The pre-teens and teens I see who tell you they "don't drink that stuff" are the same ones buying up those nasty tasting "energy drinks" chock full of caffeine and all sorts of other chemicals.

    Anything you eat or drink too much of can be bad for you. The people I knew who'd wind up with a huge tower of empty soda cans in their cubicle at work, for example? Probably wasn't doing them much good, health-wise.

    But honestly, I'm already well into my 40's and am one of those people who gets a fountain soda pretty often at the gas station, or with lunch or dinner when I go out. I occasionally buy a 2 liter of Pepsi or Dr. Pepper or something to drink at home too. I've been doing this since I was a teenager. Can't really say I've had any negative heath effects from it, so far. And I'm getting to the age where stuff starts going wrong, regardless. So I expect someone will blame my thumb that keeps popping out of its joint on the soda drinking or who knows what.... But hey, I don't smoke and really cut back on drinking alcohol since my late 20's.

    Personally, I'd trust any of the sodas with real cane sugar in them more than these artificially sweetened low-cal/no cal drinks and/or the energy drinks on the market.

  29. Re:What about both? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    I like soda and smoking. Problem?

    Only if you try to smoke soda.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  30. Diet soda could be just as bad for you by netlag1 · · Score: 1
    Interesting study from a year ago on artificial sweeteners and gut bacteria

    http://www.nature.com/news/sug...

  31. Alternative is just as bad... by superdave80 · · Score: 2

    Now kids are drinking 'energy drinks'. Not sure if this is an improvement or not. On a side note, soda isn't really that bad, it's just that they give such gigantic amounts of it to you now. I wish my company vending machine would just vend a can of coke, rather than the giant 1/2 liter bottles. And god help you if you order a 'large' soda at any place now days...

  32. Bzzzt. Thank you for playing. by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2
  33. Not expensive enough by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Soda is not expensive enough for the hipster crowd. Why drink 12 ounce cans of Coca-Cola that can be bought in bulk for $0.35 a can when you can instead buy 1.93 ounce 5 hour energy in bulk for only $1.98. That is almost 50 times as much per ounce, so it appeals to the hipster. Or, if they want to appear to be drinking LARGE expensive drinks, then they drink 16 ounce Monster energy drinks available for $1.42 per can, which is still acceptable for hipsters because it is 3 times as expensive as soda. For the pretentious health nut hipster, nothing will do but bottled water, which is unfortunately only 25% more expensive than soda, but the fact that it it healthy makes up for it to the hipster. The fact that the plastic ends up in a landfill is not the hipsters problem.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Not expensive enough by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Is it so difficult to grasp that there are people who don't like Soda?

      What is this with that hippster bashing anyway?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  34. why ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    ... why do these stories endlessly conflate sugared and diet sodas?

  35. Re:Better to drink from a leaking garbage bag by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    But really, the biggest health issue with colas is the sugar, and one may actually increase their sugar intake by switching to juice.

    But as an in-group marker, juice is da bomb.

  36. Drink by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 1

    I stopped drinking soda years ago. Very rarely touch juice either. I don't see what is healthy about juice. I only drink bottled water when I am out and about and in need of a drink. Occasionally spending 100 JPY on a bottle of icy water from a vending machine does not seem too excessive given the summers here in Japan.

    1. Re:Drink by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 2

      Oh, and even better is 100 JPY for a bottle of iced Oolong tea from a convenience store. Oishii ne.

  37. Yeah, so what's up with soda stream? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    Hmm, I get crappy fake versions of the pop I like after buying some machine and shooting spritz that my grandfather used to have in a fancy glass bottle.

    You'd have to drink a *whole lot* of pop to make that worthwhile, and I suspect if you do you could get bulk purchases of coke for even less.

    Seriously, how did that become a thing?

  38. Re:Decline of Soda?, Two words.. by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    My favorite nutjobs are those that are scared of HFCS. It's glucose bound to fructose. Your body processes it into... glucose and fructose.

    You get into trouble when you take in too much of it, in the *exact* same way you'd get into trouble if you sat there and ate handfuls of cane sugar every day.

    Just eat less of the stuff. A coke every now and then won't kill you.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  39. Re:Decline of Soda?, Two words.. by lucm · · Score: 1

    The problem with artificial sweeteners is not how they break down. The problem is that they do such a good job of faking sugar that the body is fooled and doses insulin accordingly. Which leads to long-term inflammation, insulin resistance, and all kinds of other issues. And it's made worse by the fact that the glycemic imbalance causes cravings, which lead people to consume more sugar (or fake sugar).

    I'm not saying people should drink a 12-pack of Mountain Dew when they wake up in the morning, but drinking diet soda isn't much better in the long run.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  40. Re:Better to drink from a leaking garbage bag by David_Hart · · Score: 1

    Weird to see people complaining about sugar but switching to fruit juice, though. Many if not most fruit juices have a higher sugar concentration than coke.

    Now, that's only from the sugar perspective. Caffeine has its good and bad sides, so if one wants to cut down, there's that. Phosphoric acid may or may not have a negative effect on bone density (lower bone density is associated with soda consumption but there's dispute over whether it's the phosphoric acid or just the aforementioned caffeine). Fruit juices have vitamins and minerals that most colas won't. But really, the biggest health issue with colas is the sugar, and one may actually increase their sugar intake by switching to juice.

    I've taken to mixing 1/3 juice with 2/3 water. Get some nutrients, hydration, and less fructose.

  41. Re:Decline of Soda?, Two words.. by KGIII · · Score: 1

    *chuckles* Off-topic? Me? Ha! Surely you jest. That's my default state. I don't mind the moderation (not even a little) but it's unlikely to curb my behavior any. You're probably more likely to actually help people by reserving your moderation points for others (both positive and negative) as I am unlikely to be affected. It'd probably take some work to lower my karma rating from the 'excellent' status (which, considering how off-topic I am - constantly, is kind of surprising) or anything.

    However, I think I'll use this as an opportunity to point out the futility of the system and I'll just post with my Karma Bonus. See? Now you have something new to mark as off-topic. That'll keep you amused for a few minutes.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  42. Re:Decline of Soda?, Two words.. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Some of the sweet alcohols, like inositol, taste quite good. They're just too expensive to use as a replacement for large quantities of sugar.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  43. For what it's worth by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    my kid mostly drinks water and occasionally Starbucks coffee flavored shakes ( I refuse to call them 'coffee'). Even the Starbucks is occasional. Once in a blue moon lemonade.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  44. Recommend Pur filtered water pitchers to everyone! by leftie · · Score: 1

    Pass the word. Bottled water is such a useless waste of money & resources.

    I also now use green tea bags with my old Southern sweet tea recipe.

  45. Monsatgo lobbying to poison us all some more. by BeCre8iv · · Score: 1

    Sugar tax and associated propaganda is all about a few mega-corps trying to tie up the food industry. Beteen sugar aspartame and sacharin, natural sugars are the lesser (and tastier) evil.

    --
    This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
  46. Stop Smoking first, then we can talk. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Stop Smoking first, then we can talk about other stuff like soda.

    Personally I would like to stop all artificially carbonated drinks. The fizziness is annoying. And if you ever have tasted a de-carbonated drink you will realize just how shitty the stuff you drink really is.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  47. Why bottled water rules by cfalcon · · Score: 1

    Bottled water has some serious upsides:

    1- Uniform taste. If you have bottled water of a certain brand in one place, it will almost always taste the same in another.
    2- No local skunk. If you are in a place where the water might upset your stomach (say on travel), or just in a place where the water, while fine, is unpalatable (sup, Jacksonville!), then you don't have to worry about any of that with bottled water.
    3- Because of the high profit margin, it's available and well maintained. The hotel with the skeezy water fountain and off tasting tap water will have a well lit and presented Aquafina / Dasani / whatever machine down the hall, always with plenty of product.

    When I'm at home I drink tapwater, sometimes filtered, most often not. When I'm travelling, bottled water is a huge saver of effort and way to minimize risk.

  48. Re:25% drop over 20 years is not a "plummet" by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Would "substantial decrease" make you feel better?

    How would you characterise a 25% drop in your take-home pay over the same period?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  49. Convenient + clean by denzacar · · Score: 1

    It's a resealable glass of clean water that you can buy anywhere and carry in your pocket.

    Saying "it makes no sense whatsoever to buy bottled water... For people who live in first-world countries with proper sanitation and water treatment"...
    It is like saying the same thing about cloth handkerchiefs vs. paper tissues or paper towels vs. cloth towels.

    With proper sanitation - why not just wash your ass and use a cloth towel afterwards instead of toilet paper?
    You can take it with you everywhere, in a small plastic box.
    And if a toilet has no bidet attachment, just use that bottled water to wash your ass.

    I'm only half joking here. It is all perfectly doable. Have done it on camping and such.
    Apart from carrying a towel with me. No, I don't hitchhike.
    But doing all that to avoid toilet paper or paper tissues would be rather inconvenient on a regular basis.
    Same as having MY dedicated 20$ aluminum-whatever-alloy water bottle I'd keep forgetting, losing or lugging around when I don't need or don't want to be lugging it around (i.e. when I need my hands or pockets free or busy with something else).

    I've refilled my store-bought water bottle with local tap water IF it was good (where I live it really isn't) but then I'd just dump the bottle in the trash when I don't need it anymore.
    Convenience. Of use and disposal. Plus a guaranteed clean source of drinkable water.
    Available at every news stand kiosk.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  50. Re:Better to drink from a leaking garbage bag by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Bingo. Damn, wish I had mod points today.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  51. It is even worst by aepervius · · Score: 1

    The tap water network is controlled far more often for contaminant. Bottled water company not so. So they could get pristine tap water and get it contaminated by various stuff during the bottling process.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/7763038/Bottled-water-contains-more-bacteria-than-tap-water.html

    Tap water , at least in europe and presumably the US, is more secure than bottled water.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:It is even worst by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Depends on your tap water. Where I live, the tap water tastes and looks great. In the city 30 miles away, tap water is oddly white and fizzy and tastes weird. People who live there can benefit from buying my bottled tap water.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  52. Re: 25% drop over 20 years is not a "plummet" by mbeckman · · Score: 1

    A slow, gradual decline, obviously! 25% in one year would be a plummet. Draw the graph with pct as Y, years as X if you can't visualize it mentally.

  53. Re:Better to drink from a leaking garbage bag by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    That is wrong, only zero sugar cokes have less sugar than a fruit juice.

    No idea why people like you claim this nonsense.

    Orange juice e.g. has less then half the fructose a coke has (does not matter which brand).

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  54. As a dentist, I'd like to explain a few things by mark_reh · · Score: 3, Informative

    1) adding CO2 to water turns it into an acid- carbonic acid- which is bad for the teeth because it demineralizes (dissolves) tooth enamel.
    2) most sodas contain additional phosphoric acid- the same stuff dentists use to etch teeth to help composite restorative materials bond to the teeth
    3) the sugar in soda feeds the bacteria in the mouth. The bacteria cling to the teeth in biofilms that must be removed by mechanical actions of brushing and flossing. Many of the bacteria that live in the mouth convert sugar into lactic acid which, like soda, dissolves the enamel on the teeth. Eventually anaerobic bacteria move in to the newly created environment and invade the soft tissue and bone. This is when teeth start getting loose and breath smells like death.
    4) minerals in the saliva can harden on the teeth (calculus) above and below the gum line and can't be removed by brushing and flossing- they must be removed by a hygienist with steel bladed instruments, sometimes with ultrasonic assistance. Calculus is porous and is like a high rise condo for bacteria- party all the time! Everyone should see a hygienist regularly to keep calculus build up under control.
    5) sugar is high in non nutritive calories which contributes to obesity.
    6) a huge number of health problems are related to obesity including type II diabetes, cardiovascular problems, joint problems, etc.
    7) "sports" drinks are as bad for the teeth as soda.
    8) "Mountain Dew Mouth" is indistinguishable from "Meth Mouth", probably because the condition is largely caused by meth users consuming large amounts of candy and soda because it's easier, faster, and cheaper than cooking/eating proper food and well, you know, food costs money that could be spent on more meth...
    9) Keeping teeth healthy is important for maintaining overall health and quality of life. When you lose teeth your ability to chew food properly before swallowing is diminished. Poor chewing performance leads to poor digestive performance. Lose enough teeth and you're stuck eating soft foods that you can mash with your tongue. Dentures help, but they are prosthetics- like an artificial leg, and a poor substitute for the real thing when it comes to function. Imagine spending the last 30 years or so of your life unable to eat the things you like to eat. What will a diet of spaghetti, mashed potatoes, and apple sauce do to your disposition and overall health?
    10) Your immune system helps control bacterial populations in the mouth, but in diabetics the immune response is lessened by the disease so it becomes even more important for diabetics who want to keep their teeth to step up their self care and see professionals regularly. It is extremely important to monitor your blood sugar and take your medications as instructed by your physician/endocrinologist.
    11) Smoking is bad for the teeth. Nicotine causes the small blood vessels that carry immune system components to constrict, reducing blood flow to the teeth, gums and surrounding bone. The bad bacteria freely invade the soft tissues and bone and before you know it, you start losing teeth. Smoking makes the breath stink and stains teeth. It is a filthy habit. Chewing tobacco is just disgusting and equally bad for the teeth. Any form of tobacco use delivers carcinogens to the soft tissues in the mouth and can lead to oral cancer, a particularly disfiguring form of cancer.

    Please reduce or stop soda/sports drink consumption and drink more water, quit smoking or chewing tobacco, brush and floss as instructed by your dentist, and see the dentist/hygienist regularly for maintenance. Your life will be a more pleasant experience, guaranteed.

    1. Re:As a dentist, I'd like to explain a few things by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Not a dentist, but just wanted to chime in on this one too.

      I drink those G2's as well, typically when I work out, and they tend to add about 10 more minutes of productivity to my workout. However, after workouts I do know that you already have some increased acid production in your stomach even without that gatorade. It can be significant enough in my case to end workouts. My mouth feels funny after workouts regardless of G2 consumption, and with G2 its more noticeable, so what I do is brush my teeth after I take my shower after a workout anyway.

      I do know an alternative though: Protein shakes. All of the serious gym rats drink a couple of sips of a homemade protein shake instead of gatorade. I personally can't be assed to make it before a workout because I like it cold after a workout, blended with ice. Not sure if its better for the teeth or not, the dentist would have to answer that.

    2. Re:As a dentist, I'd like to explain a few things by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      How you drink soda or sports drinks affects how they damage teeth. Sipping any sugary drink throughout the day is very bad because it keeps the mouth's pH low (acidic). If you're going to drink soda or sports drinks or any other sugary drink, including fruit juice, you should consume it relatively quickly and even chase it with plain water to help the pH return to a normal value more quickly.

      Replacing electrolytes lost through sweating during a work out is a good idea, but be sensible about it. For lower sugar look at Pedialyte.

  55. bottled water is preferable for storage by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

    At $1 plus a bottle (plus the almost always not recycled plastic bottle), why don't people just get a Britta filter for home or office?

    Because bottled water is a standard quantity of packaged, sealed, and tested water. Unlike water you package up yourself with your Britta filter, you can safely store bottled water for a long time (until the "Use By" date). Water you bottle yourself, you can at most keep for six months, and even that only if you do everything right.

    Yes, even the US government recommends bottled water for that reason: http://www.ready.gov/water

  56. Spring Water by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    It would be a trade description failure if anyone tried to sell tap water as mineral water.

    True, so you know what they do? They call it 'spring water' which is far less regulated.

  57. Same pipes by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    It is completely intellectually dishonest to the point of a LIE to assert that water delivered via a sterile, new, plastic container is the equivalent of what runs through the often old, sometimes lead, sometimes infused with bacteria and sediments stuff tossed through underground lines prone to breakage and then on premise, subject to the neglectful landlord's, and cheap ass developer's habits.

    How do you think the tap water got to the company who put it in the bottles? It goes through those exact same pipes.

    1. Re:Same pipes by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      and then a big ass filter, way better then the one you hang on your faucet.

  58. $1.00 plus is a rip-off by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    Who pays $1.00 or more per bottle? At my local supermarket I can buy 35 * 1liter bottles for $2.79US (just under $0.08 per bottle).

  59. I used to drink soft drinks... by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    I used to drink soft drinks. Then they added all of this corn syrup and removed the sugar. Now it tastes like crap.
    I wonder how much this has contributed to the decline of "big soda"?

  60. Re:Better to drink from a leaking garbage bag by Theovon · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid, I thought my parents were cheap, avoiding juice and watering it down. Now we do that for our own kids. They demand juice, so we give them apple and grape juices that don't taste like ass when you dilute them (can't do that with orange juice). And of course, we only give them the orange juice that has calcium added, and we give them almond milk and coconut (with added calcium), sometimes mixed with the unsweetened kind. The juice is mostly given as a treat... we try really hard to give them mostly water (filtered from the tap) as much as we can. Especially at night, because we don't want the sugar metabolites to damage their teeth.

    Something they really enjoy, incidentally, is water kefir. It's like probiotic soda. Not too sweet, with a bit of a yeasty taste (reminds me of beer but without the alcohol). So they get probiotics, and they think it's soda. Same thing with Kombucha. Those are especially good when they pick up a stomach bug.

  61. Re: 25% drop over 20 years is not a "plummet" by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Draw the graph with pct as Y, years as X if you can't visualize it mentally.

    Wow, I so never thought of that...

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  62. SodaStream - More like WaterStream by certsoft · · Score: 1

    SodaStream in the US has discontinued the traditional soda flavor syrups in favor of what they call "Waters". Apparently after wasting millions on a superbowl commercial in a stupid attempt to compete with Coke and Pepsi they decided that what people really want is lightly flavored water. On second thought, maybe "UrineStream" would be a better name.

  63. Re: 25% drop over 20 years is not a "plummet" by mbeckman · · Score: 1

    That's why I'm here to help you. Now for the next step. Find a tall building, go to the room and throw something soft off the edge. Graph the object's path. Compare with previous graph. That's a "plummet" vs a "gradual decline". If you still can't visualize the difference, then the final step is to gain personal experience. While still on the tall building...

  64. Re: 25% drop over 20 years is not a "plummet" by mbeckman · · Score: 1

    (Go to the roof, not the room. Why doesn't /. support editing?)

  65. "No added sugar" by dfm3 · · Score: 1

    Even worse than that? Sucralose. I've learned that one has to read ingredient lists very carefully these days, and I've been burned by products that touted "No added sugar!" or "reduced sugar!" but included added sucralose as a way to make them just as sweet, or even sweeter, as comparable products. Not to mention the tangy aftertaste that artificial sweeteners add...

  66. Potassium Citrate & Citric Acid Oral Syrup by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Potassium Citrate & Citric Acid Oral Syrup prevents/delays kidney diseases;

  67. High fructose corn syrup by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

    is the new smoking. If soft drink manufacturers switched back to cane sugar it would help evade stigmatization. Additionally, the cost benefit of using corn syrup has weakened because of the higher price of corn as a result of ethanol production. And cane sugar tastes better; some niche soft drinks have already made the switch and I've tried them.

    --
    Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
  68. Perrier Re: GOOD GRIEF! by Camembert · · Score: 1

    Perrier is indeed rather expensive, but, I like the taste. The standard one or the subtly lime flavoured one is what I usually drink. One of my few luxury food interests, and why not - life is to be enjoyed.

  69. most soda's are the root of most evil by gamekeeper · · Score: 1

    like smoking, what has the industry done to improve its standing in the community? remember the examples?? put your tooth in a glass of soda and see what happens ina couple of days?? Or a better yet, watch as it cleans your car battery