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.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Dunbal on Wednesday May 17 2017, @05:53PM (2 children)
Damn you, San Pellegrino and Perrier!
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday May 17 2017, @09:24PM (1 child)
Man, I gave up soda almost 20 years ago except for that sweet tangerine Pellegrino shit. Goddamn shit is good*.
* Especially when mixed with Southern Comfort
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @11:43PM
Shouldn't you be drinking straight ethanol?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 17 2017, @05:59PM
I absorb moisture through my skin. But now they tell us the air's no good for us frogs.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Wednesday May 17 2017, @06:04PM (25 children)
I'm sorry, but WTF is this BS I just quoted? Editor demerit. I thought it was well established by now that this kind of stuff belongs in the comment section.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @06:18PM (9 children)
Seriously, who gives a flying fuck about the editor "cheeky" comments. Just post the fucking story and put your shitty comments in the comment section. Since the new editors this place has slowly been going downhill.
I would suggest the editor try some fentanyl and save us all from their shitty attempts at adding to a story.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday May 17 2017, @06:48PM (3 children)
You need to learn the difference between the submitter and the editor.
Submitter DannyB added cheeky comment, as is quasi-tradition (even if this one is a bit longer than most).
Editor martyb did not delete comment, which upsets you but didn't bother me.
Also, you may want to learn to make a point politely.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:27PM
Or you can go fuck yourself bob, that's also a valid option.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:51PM
Well, I'm not the AC you were responding to but I do know the difference between the submitter and the editor. The editor is supposed to...wait for it...edit the submission before it is put out. As it is, it appears that martyb merely rubber-stamped this submission. Frankly, I think the editors could (and should!) do better.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 18 2017, @04:13AM
Leave. DannyB. Alone! [youtube.com]
I do it, too. Slashdot always did it, so I continued it. So hold your head high, DannyB! Don't let the trolls get you down. If they don't like it, they can goshdarned submit their own stories and make their submissions as dry as dust. Don't hold your breath, because they won't. If they did, though, you and me and the rest of us terrible, incompetent submitters and editors could kick back and whinge about how dull and dry their submissions are and how Soylent is going to the dogs because it's no fun anymore.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @06:48PM (3 children)
this place has slowly been going downhill
Don't worry. This shithole of a site won't be around much longer.
A combination of personal issues and burnout have caused staffing on the site to drop annoyingly low.
Best guess is a staff member does a little corporate embezzling and SoylentFakeNews is fucking finished forever. Good riddance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:55PM (1 child)
Protip: if you are going to do the staircase flounce thing, it is better if you attach a name to it, even if it is just a pseudonym. What's that? You are not actually leaving? Yeah, umm...why am I not surprised?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @09:39PM
I will dance on the rotting grave of ShitstainSpews !
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @11:49PM
Good riddance.
Oh no, don't leave us AC! What would we do without you ... I mean us ... I mean ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @11:46PM
I would suggest the editor try some fentanyl and save us all from their shitty attempts at adding to a story.
Timothy, is that you? Are you looking for an editor position?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 17 2017, @06:18PM (9 children)
"I don't understand that scientists include reasonable and sane control groups as a basic standard and I vote."
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @06:20PM
Pretty much, martyb sounds like a fucking tool.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:14PM (7 children)
What are you talking about?
There is no mention of control groups in that comment.
Only scientifically unsound claims that fake sugar makes people gain weight.
No such causual linkage has been found. Only that people who need to diet because they are fat and sedentary drink diet sodas.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:28PM (6 children)
What's implication and context?
Oh, nevermind. Carry on with your analysis by control-f.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:45PM (5 children)
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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
Sorry dude.
I thought your quotes were an attempt to dismissively restate RedBear's post.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday May 17 2017, @07:00PM (3 children)
Okay, maybe I should have put it in the comments.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:46PM (1 child)
Yes, you should have. For the sake of your own credibility, I suggest you not do that again.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday May 17 2017, @09:18PM
What? - - I have credibility?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 18 2017, @04:18AM
No, man, hold the line! Never give up, never surrender!
All's you gotta do is, after you've said what you've said, put an ellipsis and question mark: ...? Gets you neatly off the hook, because then it's possibly ironically meant and you can pivot any which way you want to that you feel will most effectively put off your detractors and encourage them to get off their butts and do the submitting next time.
Nuance, my friend.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday May 18 2017, @12:36AM
As I was correctly reminded by a few people here a couple days ago, SoylentNews is... PEOPLE. Submitters sometimes include commentary. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's really bad and should be edited out. This case seems okay either way -- it's clear that it's submitter commentary. Respond to it or ignore it as you wish. I'm not going to get worked up about it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @06:08PM (7 children)
Rodents can't vomit. Remind me whether rodents can burp and fart.
When you compare apples to oranges, or in this case rodents to humans, your sensationalist bullshit conclusions aren't as fucking significant as you might think.
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Wednesday May 17 2017, @07:08PM (2 children)
Translation: "I don't like that result, therefore it must be bullshit."
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @07:15PM
Translation: "THE RESULT IS VALID BECAUSE RATS ARE PEOPLE TOO!!!! " *fingers in ears* "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!"
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday May 17 2017, @10:54PM
To be fair, many things which test one way on rats, fail to work in that way on people. To assert that there is no correlation or causal realtionship would be foolish, but so would be claiming that the test definitely applies to humans.
OTOH...this is the kind of thing that could be tested on humans. But doing it double blind is probably impossible. Still, this isn't the first study to conclude that artificial sweeteners also lead to weight gain, and some (most?) of those studies *were* done on humans. It's the first one I've encountered that indicated that seltzer water would lead to weight gain, however. So there might be a question as to whether it's the artificial sweetener or the fizz that leads to weight gain. That's presuming that the prior studies used soda water to provide the artificial sweeteners, and also presuming that fizzy water leads humans to gain weight. Two things that need to be investigated before taking this too seriously. But it certainly is interesting.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @07:43PM
I wonder if hormone levels are higher for rats if gas lingers in rats longer than gas lingers in humans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @07:51PM (2 children)
Rats are also obligate autocoprophages: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2605155 [nih.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:11PM (1 child)
Yes and Richard Stallman eats his own shit. What's your point?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:40PM
Perhaps the carbonated beverage renders the feces more tasty.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday May 17 2017, @06:19PM (2 children)
I've sworn for yaesr that I tend to gain weight faster when drinking beer than when drinking wine; this would probably help explain that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @06:24PM (1 child)
Solution, drink flat beer. Or liquor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @06:27PM
Something like this [chicagonow.com]?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday May 17 2017, @06:38PM (2 children)
Monster "nitrous" products were carbonated for legal reasons instead of actual nitrous oxide. I wonder if we'll see energy drinks with dissolved ... something other than CO2. Argon maybe.
I brew my own loose leaf tea for caffeine. People who don't like tea think I'm crazy because they don't like crappy teabag powdery old bitter disgusting stuff inedible toxic waste artificial flavor tea. But since I brew my own with looseleaf its not rancid or acidic and tastes halfway decent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:36PM
Monster "nitrous" products were carbonated for legal reasons instead of actual nitrous oxide.
Or... no bottler in the entire country was set up to put n2o into water instead of co2 and "nitrous" was just a marketing name anyway.
Nah. Couldn't have been that.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Farmer Tim on Wednesday May 17 2017, @10:20PM
Came for the news, stayed for the soap opera.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @06:41PM (8 children)
Another reason to bring in the unsweetened teas. I switched a few years back and most black and green teas are sweet enough sans sugar. Now if restaurants would just keep it fresh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @07:15PM (5 children)
It's also:
* Cheap. $1-4 for 100 bags which can make 25 or more gallons
* Better tasting and more refreshing than water
* Mixable with juice or lemonade for others
* Caffeinated
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday May 17 2017, @10:57PM (1 child)
With tea it's not the caffeine, it's the theobromides. Tea has only about half as much caffeine as coffee.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18 2017, @02:24AM
That could be a feature. Drink a half gallon of coffee and compare to the same amount of iced tea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @11:47PM (2 children)
You forgot one: fluoride. Teas have tons of fluoride in them. Sure, the fluoride will help prevent cavities if you swish the tea around in your mouth for a little while before you swallow (which will also fully stain your teeth), but the fluoride is toxic to every other part of your body. Tea isn't worth it. Herbal tea is better, but the different herbs do have side effects so you have to research what you buy. If only life was simple.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18 2017, @02:30AM
Omfg now I have to go back to water so I don't get kidney disease [reuters.com]. This sucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18 2017, @02:24PM
After further consideration I think I will switch to green tea which seems to have less fluoride and oxalates. And continue to drink 1/2 gallon today rather than 1-2 gallons like in the kidney failure cases.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:44PM (1 child)
This.
I drink the hell out of green tea. I boil up some water, toss in three tea bags, steep, and then transfer that to a 2 quart (~2 L) pitcher which is filled the rest of the way with water (because why waste all that energy boiling 2 quarts of water?). I also like to add a little honey for a slight hint of sweet and flavor. Usually two tablespoons or about 30 ml. Though I mostly drink it plain and almost always with a squeeze of fresh lemon.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 18 2017, @04:34AM
In Japan their hot water dispensers on the water cooler output green tea. It's a beautiful thing. If you have a late night you don't have to bother with coffee brewing and its caffeine spike or acid afterburn. You can suck down cup after cup of the green from the water cooler and ride the even buzz all the way to the completion of your project.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @06:45PM (2 children)
I'm going back to drinking frosty piss.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @06:50PM (1 child)
As opposed to frothy piss, am I rite??
(Score: 2) by Uncle_Al on Thursday May 18 2017, @01:39AM
You must be new here.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Wednesday May 17 2017, @07:12PM (4 children)
If you’re going to drink carbonated water, it should be naturally carbonated, as in beer; even if it’s not free!
Yeah, you’ll get fat too but if you drink beer, you won’t care!
Cheers
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 17 2017, @09:21PM (1 child)
That would be a solution for the subset of the population which drinks alcohol. I do not.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @11:55PM
Aaaaaaand there goes your previously mentioned credibility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18 2017, @02:22AM
Even most beers these days are artificially carbonated, the yeast is thoroughly filtered out after the beer is done, before bottling/kegging, so it won't carbonate the beer while it's sitting. This gives it a longer shelf life and makes the logistics of packaging easier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18 2017, @05:55PM
Most beer is not naturally carbonated. It is force carbonated with Co2 from a cylinder using a carb stone, just like carbonated soft drinks.
There are exceptions of course. Most naturally carbed beer is bottle conditioned, like Sierra Nevada Pale Ale (at least it used to be) and almost all Belgian style ales.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday May 17 2017, @07:23PM (2 children)
This one is easy, you avoid carbonated drinks and get to keep your health. Next!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:10PM (1 child)
Tap water has lead, bottled water is ruining our aquifers, produces unnecessary plastic waste, not to mentions leetches BPA into the water.
Running out of things to drink there champ. Should everyone buy a reverse osmosis machine?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:25PM
Nope. Reverse Osmosis water is too low in minerals, thus it leaches minerals out of your teeth.
Drink from (and piss and shit in) a clean, pure mountain stream like nature intended. If somebody upstream shits and pisses in it, well, time to play king-of-the-mountain.
"There can be only one!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @07:40PM
All they refer to is "carbonated beverage", why does the paper not include basic info like the ingredients of this beverage? I get it that consuming what is literally pollution must be bad for you, but that does not mean our standards should drop so low as to not even tell readers the treatment given. I can't wait for papers where they give rats "tasty beverage" and compare to "placebo": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBP0Mbc7VFw [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @07:42PM (5 children)
You forgot that most of those carbonated drinks have mega=salt also. (You cannot taste it because it is balanced by all the sugar/sweetener)
e.g. The "New Coke" recipe was mostly more salt and sugar.
And that astronaut study showed that makes you hungrier also...
http://www.popsci.com/high-salt-diets-might-make-you-hungrier [popsci.com]
If it wasn't for the hunger suppressing effect of caffeine it would be a clean sweep.
Coke and Pepsi must be shitting their gold threaded panties right about now. Look for a dump of articles that "prove" all this was mistaken and that the science is still not decided etc....
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:22PM (3 children)
Coke and Pepsi must be shitting their gold threaded panties right about now
Not really; their namesake products are declining; but they're more than making up for it in bottled water, energy drinks, and sports drinks.
Carbonated water products might take a hit, but that's already a small part of the non-carbonated water products, and any losses will probably just shift over to the non-carbonated variants.
(Score: 2) by SunTzuWarmaster on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:47PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18 2017, @03:47AM
Went to hear Dean Kamen (Segway inventor) give a talk once. One of his stories was about a small self contained water purification system he developed that could provide enough clear water for poor, remote, villages. The problem was how to distribute them. He recognized that Coke is an expert on distribution, in that they distribute products in almost every country in the world. Coke agreed to distribute the devices if he would come up with a soda fountain that would mix any of Coke's products. The result is the touch screen soda fountain that you may have seen.
(Score: 2) by lx on Thursday May 18 2017, @06:47AM
This is probably the first time I've read "The Coca-Cola Company" and "trusted" in the same sentence without a negative qualifier thrown in.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:43PM
You forgot that most of those carbonated drinks have mega=salt also.
That's false.
Sodium RDA is 2300 mg. [sfgate.com]
Sodium content of one can of soda is in the 50mg range. [pepsicobeveragefacts.com]
As usual with food related stories, people just post random bullshit they believe rather than facts and it gets upvoted.
But that's why we come to soylent, for the high quality discussion, right?
(Score: 2) by chewbacon on Wednesday May 17 2017, @08:20PM
...we are all gonna die anyway.
(Score: 2) by dmc on Thursday May 18 2017, @03:41AM
This sounds stupid. Look up Rat Park on wikipedia to get the good science on the cages issue. But what makes it stupid is that clearly here they compared rats in the same living environment against water, decarbonated water, and carbonated water. So if there is a significant result, the fact that they were all in cages seems less singularly relevant. Yes, living environment of test subjects absolutely matters. No, it is not some science club that can be usefully swung at whatever ideas you didn't want to consider.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18 2017, @12:12PM
there must be some conspiracy:
first i dont understand the appeal of carbonated water if they dont throw in some flavour and sugar (or alcohol).
maybe the de-gasing effect proofs to the consumer that the bottled water is "fresh"?
furthermore the carbon-water manufacturers must be silently smiling about the extra monetary markup
the consumer are willing to pay by injecting a global warming pollutent into the product?
but the biggest conspiracy might just be the top-secret catalisator obtaint from a alien
signal source that totally cheaply converts all bottled mineral (lol) water into methan with the help
of some UV rays.
i mean, the carbon water sellers might go to bed not careing about, cancer, nukes, north korea because
they have this confirming secret, that humankind is ... plain dumb?