Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday May 17 2017, @05:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the things-you-can't-drink dept.

Here is part of an abstract (Javascript required; emphasis copied from the original stories) . . .

Carbon dioxide in carbonated beverages induces ghrelin release and increased food consumption in male rats: Implications on the onset of obesity.

RESULTS: Here, we show that rats consuming gaseous beverages over a period of around 1 year gain weight at a faster rate than controls on regular degassed carbonated beverage or tap water. This is due to elevated levels of the hunger hormone ghrelin and thus greater food intake in rats drinking carbonated drinks compared to control rats. Moreover, an increase in liver lipid accumulation of rats treated with gaseous drinks is shown opposed to control rats treated with degassed beverage or tap water. In a parallel study, the levels of ghrelin hormone were increased in 20 healthy human males upon drinking carbonated beverages compared to controls.

CONCLUSIONS: These results implicate a major role for carbon dioxide gas in soft drinks in inducing weight gain and the onset of obesity via ghrelin release and stimulation of the hunger response in male mammals.

Here is another article.

Fizzy water could cause obesity by encouraging you to eat more

Fizzy water could be a cause of obesity, according to a new study.

[...] The rats who drank fizzy drinks also showed signs of fat accumulating around their organs, a symptom of chronic obesity.

Levels of the hunger hormone ghrelin were "significantly higher" after the rats had had a carbonated drink.

[...] Gavin Partington, director-general of the British Soft Drinks Association, said the study was "bad science" because the outcomes for humans may not be the same as those for rats.

Regular coke has tons of sugar. So switch to Diet Coke. But that has artificial sweetener which can make you gain weight. So try La Croix flavored sparkling water, but oh, no, that is carbonated, and it can make you gain weight. Maybe bottled water? But that's probably no good either since whenever rats are experimented upon, something bad happens to them. Therefore I should just go on the wagon and stop drinking completely since even tap water is no good. Maybe researchers are being given too much money? Maybe living in cages causes problems in rats? Maybe back to regular coke.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:45PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:45PM (#511374)

    Hey sanctimonious dumbass! There was no implication about control groups either.
    And context? What, you think he's a trump voter or something? JFC. Facts not in evidence.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:58PM (4 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:58PM (#511384) Journal

    They pretty clearly imply that the researchers didn't think of the possibility that tap water poses the same risk("and stop drinking completely since even tap water is no good"), when an even cursory examination of the "materials and methods" section of the paper, expresses quite clearly the target groups are

    (i) tap water, (ii) regular degassed CB (DgCB), (iii) regular CB (RCB) and (iv) diet CB (DC);

    And their data shows that consistently, over the course of the experiment, that weight-grain variables are higher for iii than iv which where higher than ii which were higher than i.

    Which is to say, they specifically isolated different possible variables and controlled for them. And the extracted editorializing, if you'll pardon my continued condescension, completely full of shit and due exactly zero respect

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @09:08PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @09:08PM (#511389)

      This is just another idiotic NHST study. They weren"t blinded, animals are missing from the analysis for no explained reason, no one can ever replicate it because they don't say what carbonated beverage was used, etc. Im surpised to see you defending it, as if merely using a control group makes it sciience.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 17 2017, @09:30PM (1 child)

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 17 2017, @09:30PM (#511401) Journal

        You know, in truth I sat here for a solid ten minutes reading and rereading your post trying to get some insight into the convolutions that brought us here.

        Your comments here are as if the position I am defending is representing the paper as the platonic ideal of good scientific research with no methodological flaws, rather than, you know, taking a specific piece of garbage editorializing that is specifically refuted in the source material, and refuting it on that basis.

        The objections you raise would certainly be grounds for doing further research before, like, modifying a standard of care in medicine, or something. But for discovering a relationship in a biochemical process, and raising further questions... it's fine? It's totally fine? Correlations are reasonably strong, effect sizes modestly large, low likeliehood of p-hacking without actual data fabrication being involved.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @09:53PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @09:53PM (#511413)

          Low likelihood of p hacking for a paper that says they used 16 rats but the figures report data from only 12? What does a high likelihood of p hacking look like to you? This paper is 100% p hacked, no doubt about it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @11:39PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @11:39PM (#511452)

      Sorry dude.
      I thought your quotes were an attempt to dismissively restate RedBear's post.