SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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 and 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."
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 04 2015, @03:24PM
First - America has a problem with obesity. There is no "zero calorie" soda. They all contribute to obesity.
Second - the food colorings used in soda, like food coloring in many other foods, have been linked to ADD/ADHD. No "proven" cause and effect, but clinical evidence is abundant that children who consume these food colorings have more problems than children who do no.
Third - sugar in fruit juices is an entirely different sugar than found in sweetened drinks. Whether the distributor is using corn syrup or cane sugar, it is an unhealthy choice. Natural fruit juices are a healthier choice.
Fourth - the acids found in soda are unhealthy. It's not a question of making the stomach more acid, but it's a matter of the wrong kind of acidity. I don't believe the stomach can be "to acidic", but the proper acidity is changed by acidic drinks.
With all of that said - despite the fact that I think soda to be pretty stupid, I can't stand the assholes who want to dictate whether you can drink it, how much, or how often. Unless you're spending my money, I don't give a damn what you drink.
What I do resent, in regards to soda, is the mega-mass marketing of soda. All day, every day, impressionable young minds are exposed to advertising which indocrinates them to believe that soda is the only choice. It's "Coke or Pepsi", never "Water, juice, or soda". I could argue that water is the healthiest choice, others would argue that juice is the healthiest choice - no one can make a good argument that soda is the healthiest.
I agree that paying for water in a bottle is pretty damned stupid. WTF? It's like paying someone for bottled air. Why would you do it?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday October 04 2015, @03:37PM
There is no "zero calorie" soda.
How do you figure? All those products labeled Calories: 0... they just slipped by the FDA somehow?
They all contribute to obesity.
Odd, then, that I'm not obese, or even anywhere close.
have been linked to ADD/ADHD.
Citation?
No "proven" cause and effect
OK then, never mind about the citation.
Whether the distributor is using corn syrup or cane sugar, it is an unhealthy choice. Natural fruit juices are a healthier choice.
You missed "no sugar" which was the point of the post to which you replied.
Oh by the way -- corn and sugar cane are not natural? What are you smoking? Though, I guess it is harmless, right, since it is natural?
the acids found in soda are unhealthy
Citation? And again, then why am I healthy?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:01PM
The unhealthy acid bit is in reference to citric and phosphoric acid in most fruit juices and colas being very bad for the teeth, long term. So for better luck, go google up those specific terms rather than "acid is bad" or whatever.
Fructose is a good solid punch to the liver, its almost as hard to metabolize as alcohol although it doesn't get you high, so LOL at the "food babe" level science of "fruit juice is natural and healthy". No its pretty much crap, just not quite as bad as Mt Dew. Consumed occasionally as semi-solid fruit, the juice in fruit isn't as unhealthy because the fiber dramatically slows adsorption rates plus the acids in the fruit can't corrode your teeth if they're in the center of an orange or whatever and therefore never contact your teeth.
Its interesting to speculate on some kind of healthy canned drink that isn't just bottled water. Some electrolytes would be handy, a modest amount of salt. Maybe some vitamins. If you liked paying $1 for a bottled water, you'll love the $3 health food store vitamin water products that are relatively pH neutral so no dental erosion and are more or less pedialyte rehydration formula remarketed for adults.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @07:44PM
> Some electrolytes would be handy, a modest amount of salt.
Salt is an electrolyte. In fact, all that bullshit marketing about electrolytes isn't about much more than a little sodium in the drink.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:06PM
> How do you figure? All those products labeled Calories: 0... they just slipped by the FDA somehow?
The FDA lets companies round down. If the total calories per serving is less than 50, then they round to 5 calorie increments. So each serving in a 0-calorie soda can have 2.49 calories and still be labeled as zero calories. They also say that anything less than 5 calories qualifies for "calorie free" labeling. I"m not sure what that means.
But runaway isn't smart enough to know all that. Even if he did know that, a 5 calorie soda contributes to obesity in the same way the potted plant in the corner contributes to the oxygen I breathe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:13PM
H probably means zero calorie sodas contribute to obesity by causing spike in insulin (some info [mercola.com]).
(Score: 5, Funny) by maxwell demon on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:46PM
Here's an excerpt from their make file:
SCNR :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by naubol on Sunday October 04 2015, @06:12PM
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jgs.13376/abstract;jsessionid=45C4F3344AA5322725252D6C2035FC3B.f01t02 [wiley.com]
You're a sample of one.
Correlation may not be causation, but demonstrating correlation can be somewhat persuasive.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @07:19PM
Citation? And again, then why am I healthy?
Denial?
(Score: 3, Informative) by gman003 on Sunday October 04 2015, @03:58PM
Isn't it all glucose, fructose and sucrose anyways? Cane sugar is mainly sucrose, corn syrup is a mix of glucose and fructose, and some quick research shows fruits are generally a mix of all three.
Chemicals don't care if the process that made them was "alive" or not. Fructose is pentahydroxyhexanone, whether it was made by apples, by corn, or synthesized in a lab from base carbohydrates.
(Score: 4, Informative) by VLM on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:26PM
some quick research shows fruits are generally a mix of all three.
Much like table salt is a compound of sodium and chlorine, sucrose IS glucose and fructose in an exact 1:1 ratio. So chop a sucrose molecule in half in your stomach wall and you get one glucose and one fructose. Cane sugar is 100% sucrose aka exactly 50:50 glucose/fructose.
I don't know why biochemically speaking plants like to stockpile excess sugars in sucrose form, maybe its just less reactive or some random thing. Its just "what plants do". You're kinda stacking two things in the place of one, and its a bigger less reactive molecule...
Glucose is cool, it drops right into the citric acid cycle to generate ATP. Right from your gut to every cell in your body, more or less, without much in between.
Fructose is a good swift kick in the liver and makes life rather hard on that organ. It goes to a considerable effort to crack it into something useful to the body, the end results are eventually in the fatty acid / triglycerides path and into the glucose cycle. There's a peculiar cirrhosis of the liver that can develop from too much fructose intake.
Its possible to shove excess glucose into the triglycerides path, but fructose automatically dumps it in the path as part of normal metabolism. So if consumed in excess its probably not terribly good for weight loss or cardiovascular health.
Fructose does have one cool feature which is if your guts are ravaged out already and you've got diabetes or pre-diabetes then fructose tastes super sweet and has a low glycemic index, so after your guts are messed up, its probably the "best" sweetener, yet before your guts are broken its probably the worst sweetener, which is kind of weird but true symmetry.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:47PM
If you get down to the nitty gritty, all foods are equal. Carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, right? So, if I get a lump of charcoal and some water for your dinner, you're all set?
Sugar cane isn't all that unhealthy. Give it to a kid, and he's got to work at munching up the sugar, and at the same time, he's getting a tiny bit of nutritional value from it. All in all, he can't consume an awful lot of energy in a day's time, even if he's got a truckload of the stuff. Processed granulated sugar, on the other hand, permits the kid to consume ten times the energy he needs all day long, in a single sitting.
Corn syrup? That's a relatively healthy starch that is effectively predigested, leaving behind chains of sugars. Like the granulated sugar, all the extra nutrition has been stripped away, leaving only calories. Corn syrup is composed of several sugars, actually, but even the longest chains are broken down pretty quickly in the digestive system. Lots of energy, no nutrition, same as granulated sugar.
Fruit juices have both short and long chain sugar, but they have a lot of nutrition in them as well.
Artificial sweeteners? I've never found one that is fit to eat. A lot of people, including my wife, have tried to sneak it into my diet. I have always detected them. They taste like - what else? Chemicals. Even as a little kid, my mother couldnt' sneak sacharine into my food. People have to be trained to like it. Kinda like alcohol - kids don't like their first taste of alcohol, they train themselves to like the stuff.
While the sweetener might be "zero calorie", the rest of the ingredients aren't necessarily zero calorie. Let's return to corn syrup, as an example. Corn syrup has 53 grams of carbohydrates, but only 29 grams of sugar. Why the discrepancy? Well - "sugar" refers to short chain sugars. But corn syrup contains long chain sugars as well. Thanks to a play on semantics, corn syrup manufacturers get to claim that they only have 29 grams of sugar - but in fact, you're consuming 53 grams of sugar with each serving.
Knowing that, I look at those "zero calorie" drinks, and wonder, "Just how many calories ARE THERE?" as well as "What is the cost of "low calorie?"
http://foodbabe.com/2013/01/25/coca-colas-low-calorie-beverages-will-kill-you-before-they-solve-obesity/ [foodbabe.com]
"That’s right – consuming artificial sweeteners actually increases your appetite."
"You’ll find crystalline fructose in Vitamin Water Zero, which is made from (genetically modified) corn starch which is 20% sweeter than sugar. Fructose is processed by the body differently than other sugars – and is linked to fatty liver disease, cirrhosis, coronary arterial disease and obesity."
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Justin Case on Sunday October 04 2015, @05:05PM
They taste like - what else? Chemicals.
Protip: water is a chemical.
You're starting to sound like a health-food-as-a-religion missionary rather than someone with factual knowledge.
I look at those "zero calorie" drinks, and wonder, "Just how many calories ARE THERE?"
Hmmm, that's a toughie. Let's see if we can work it out.
(0 + 0) * 0 + (0 * 0) - 0 - (0 * 0)
Starting to look like it might be zero.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @07:49PM
Some experimenters reported that fructose added to various beverages at various temperatures was 77% to 136% sweeter than sucrose.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2758952 [nih.gov]
When soda makers disclose the energy content of their drinks, they can write a smaller number for the calories, without reducing the sweetness, if they use fructose rather than sucrose.
In the US, corn production is heavily subsidized. I speculate that it may have to do with fact that the Iowa primaries are held early, in election years.
Sucrose, on the other hand, is subject to regulations that tend to increase its price to about twice that on the world market:
http://www.atr.org/sugar-policy-sweet-economy-a7127 [atr.org]
Ton for ton, fructose is about twice as sweet and (in the US) costs about half as much, so it yields around four times as much bang for the buck.
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Monday October 05 2015, @06:37AM
Fructose may be the same chemical when in high fructose corn syrup as it is in a fruit, but the fruit (not fruit juice) also contains fiber which slows the absorption of sugar into your bloodstream.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday October 04 2015, @04:22PM
As for table sugar, you know that it is extracted from plant matter right? It isn't like it's some exotic compound whipped up by DuPont. Table sugar is about 50/50 glucose and fructose, the same as many juices. And you realize that fructose, which many juices have an excess of over white sugar, is a pretty bad actor right? Fruit juice is soda -- squeezing all the sweet sap out of a sugar cane is no different than squeezing all the sweet sap out of a bunch of grapes (aside from the fact that there's more sugar in grape juice than soda). http://www.cbsnews.com/news/juice-as-bad-as-soda-docs-say/ [cbsnews.com]
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/29/whole-fruit-juice-diabetes-risk [theguardian.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/fruit-sugar-versus-white-sugar_n_3497795.html [huffingtonpost.com]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday October 04 2015, @05:27PM
Juice isn't really the healthiest choice, because the best stuff in fruit is not in fruit juice. It's better than soda, but not by as much as you might think. The drinks that are legitimately healthy for everybody over age 1 or so, provided none of them are to excess: water, tea, beer, wine, milk. (For under age 1, it's an even shorter list: Breast milk, water, in that order.)
That said, the right solution to the problem of soda and other products that are bad in excess is not a heavy-handed ban or limits on the size of drinks (darn you, Michael Bloomberg!) but: 1. A public education campaign. 2. Remove soda from schools. 3. Ban advertising on TV. That had the desired effect for tobacco, there's no reason to think it couldn't work for soda.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @07:32PM
3. Ban advertising on TV.
Unconstitutional.
(Score: 1) by deadstick on Sunday October 04 2015, @09:01PM
Liggett and Myers wish you'd tipped them off to that sooner.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday October 05 2015, @07:01AM
If banning tits on TV is constitutional, then how can banning ads be unconstitutional?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 06 2015, @12:44AM
Tits are only banned on free-to-air broadcast TV.