SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The best science CO2 can buy:
Do studies show that soft drinks promote obesity and Type 2 diabetes? It depends on who paid for the study.
Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, looked at studies of soft drink consumption and its relationship to obesity and diabetes published between 2001 and 2016. They found about 60 studies that were fairly rigorous in their methodology. When the studies were led by independent researchers, they showed a clear link between soda consumption and obesity or metabolic disease. But notably, 26 of the studies reported no link between sugary soft drinks and poor health.
What was different about the studies that found no connection to health problems? They were all carried out by researchers with financial ties to the beverage industry. The findings were published Monday [DOI: 10.7326/L16-0534] [DX] in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
Also at LA Times and Houston Chronicle.
Previously: Sugar Industry Secretly Paid for Favorable Harvard Research in 1960s
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday November 02 2016, @05:09AM
The problem is excess sugar consumption, period. Replacing the HFCS in somebody's Super Big Gulp with sucrose isn't going to magically make drinking large quantities of soda healthy. There's a lot of misunderstandings when it comes to evaluating research on HFCS (mostly because people confuse pure fructose -- which does have a proven worse effect on metabolism -- with HFCS, which is generally only about half fructose, putting it in similar breakdowns to sucrose, honey, etc.).
There are a few studies that seem to show worse effects for HFCS compared to sucrose, but there is a larger number of studies that shows no significant difference. The jury's still out about whether HFCS is really that much worse, but BOTH sweeteners are clearly bad if consumed in excess. And there have been a couple European studies on soft drinks with cane sugar, so yeah, to answer the specific question here, yes soft drinks with sucrose are still bad for you.
I've really never understood why people spend so much time worrying about the differences between HFCS vs. White sugar vs. "Raw sugar" vs. whatever. These are all heavily processed products (even if the sugar crystals are a little irregular and brownish... Doesn't magically make them more healthy). From a historical standpoint, in all cases you're consuming a product with a sweetness concentration far above what humans evolved eating. (And without the excess fiber, liquid, etc. that sugars come with in most raw foods.) It shouldn't surprise anybody that it can do strange things to metabolism.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday November 02 2016, @08:19AM
Calorie per calorie, the specific formulation of sugar matters. [nih.gov] Just because skipping sugar entirely is healthier doesn't mean we shouldn't look for the better sweetener.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday November 03 2016, @05:16PM
And I quote my previous post:
There are a few studies that seem to show worse effects for HFCS compared to sucrose, but there is a larger number of studies that shows no significant difference. The jury's still out about whether HFCS is really that much worse, but BOTH sweeteners are clearly bad if consumed in excess.
Yes, that's one of those studies. I've seen 3 of them, maybe 4, and I've looked hard. I've also seen plenty others that seem to show no significant difference.
My point isn't that HFCS might not be somewhat worse for you -- maybe it is -- but overall per capita sugar consumption in the US has increased greatly since WWII. Blaming the obesity epidemic on HFCS is likely misguided, and subbing in sucrose for soft drinks that already have WAY too much sugar is probably not going to help significantly.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday November 04 2016, @03:30PM
If the industry doesn't think they're as bad, why are they going out of their way to get HFCS renamed to corn sugar or other obfuscations?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday November 02 2016, @07:45PM
"The problem is excess sugar consumption, period."
No. Its not that simple. The type of sugar matters, not just the quantity. Your body handles different sugars using different mechanisms and priorities.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ [princeton.edu]
They three groups of rats, control group getting just rat food and water, a group with HFCS sweetened water available at half the concentration of a normal soda in addition to normal water, and a group getting sucrose water at the same level used in sodas in addition to normal water. The group getting the HFCS gained more weight and had worse over all health than the other groups. Think about that for a second, a group getting half the HFCS used in a normal soda gained more weight than the group getting twice the calories in the form of sucrose.
So the issue is not just that people consume excess sugar in their diets.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday November 03 2016, @05:23PM
No. Its not that simple. The type of sugar matters, not just the quantity. Your body handles different sugars using different mechanisms and priorities.
I never disputed that. In fact, my post specifically said there are some studies which show a difference. (You quoted one of the ones that has.) There are others which don't.
My point is that the amount of sugar in most soft drinks is bad for you. PERIOD. There is no question that they are NOT "healthy" additions to human diets. And per capita sugar consumption has grown significantly in recent decades. The reason we focus so much on the US on HFCS is because our rdiculous corn subsidies made it cheaper and it became a great component of our sugar consumption starting in the 70s.
And by the way, if you think I'm "defending" HFCS, I'm absolutely not. I'd be happy if it were completely removed from the food supply. But I've heard way too many hipsters feeling proud of themselves when they enjoy their Mexican Coke without the HFCS. If they want to drink it, that's their choice. But acting like such a substitution is going to make a major difference in the current obesity epidemic... well, there's just not science to support that. Whatever HFCS effects there may be over sucrose, you'd get many times that by simply cutting your total sugar consumption.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday November 03 2016, @05:38PM
Sorry to reply one more time, but I just want to mention one last thing to those who are concerned over HFCS but don't seem as worried about sucrose.
The reason I get a bit incensed by such arguments is that all it will do is lead companies to substitute other sweeteners in place of HFCS, and that's not going to improve our food supply. In fact, if things like Mexican Coke are any indication, they may actually add MORE sweetener to products to compensate for the fact that other sweeteners aren't as sweet as HFCS, so any problematic effects of HFCS compared to sucrose or whatever may be overruled by the increased sugar content in general.
It's already happening. I still remember when a well-meaning grandparent bought some of that "natural" Greek-style yogurt for my young son, with its "no sugar added" prominently mentioned on the label. She thought it was "healthy." I was offering it to my son and tasted it and almost spit it out because it was so sweet. I looked at the label, and sure enough one of the top ingredients was "evaporated cane juice." For those not in the know, that's basically processed sugar, just processed slightly differently. But hey, it's "juice," so it must be good for you, right?
Overall, the concentration of sugar in that yogurt was higher than in a can of Coke. But people end up buying it because it's the healthy "natural" choice with "no sugar added."
That's the kind of crap we can look forward to with the crusade against HFCS. Companies will just hide the sugar in other ingredients with fancier names, and they'll probably put more of it in than ever. That won't help obesity rates. We really just need to decrease sugar consumption in general.
(And note that once you do, you start realizing how sickeningly sweet everything really is. I can't drink normal soda anymore... it's disgustingly sweet to me. I have a number of friends who say the same thing. If you start weaning yourself off of sugar in general, you'll eventually realize how unnecessary a lot of it is.)