Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Having seen the evidence, I don't touch fizzy drinks any more - leading biologist
07-31-2012, 09:42 PM,
#1
Having seen the evidence, I don't touch fizzy drinks any more - leading biologist
Quote:Biological scientist Dr Hans-Peter Kubis, who's just led a study into what soft drinks do to our bodies, has reached some shocking conclusions. When you read what he discovered, you may well choose never to touch the fizzy stuff again.

Once upon a time, fizzy drinks were an occasional luxury treat.

Now, many of us think nothing of having at least one every day — maybe a lunchtime can of cola or a ‘natural’ lemonade from Pret.

We use them as instant pick-me-ups, and even as ‘healthy’ sports aids bought from vending machines at the gym.

No trip to the cinema is complete without a supersize soft drink, either.

It’s no surprise to learn, then, that our consumption of soft drinks has more than doubled since 1985 — from ten gallons per person a year to more than 25 gallons.

We know this is not entirely good for us — but could sugary soft drinks be so dangerous that they should carry health warnings?

This may sound alarmist, but new medical studies have produced worrying results.

Even moderate consumption — a can a day, or just two a week — may alter our metabolism so that we pile on weight.

The drinks also appear to increase the risk of heart disease, liver failure and hypertension.

In children, soft drinks have been linked to addict-like cravings, as well as twisting kids’ appetites so they hunger for junk food.

Already, countries such as Denmark and France are introducing soft-drink taxes to cut consumption.

In the U.S., around 100 medical and consumer organisations are now calling on the Surgeon-General to investigate the health effects of soda and other sugary drinks.

Should we in Britain follow suit?

Sugary soft drinks come in numerous guises — from ‘innocuous’ fizzy elderflower to ‘health’ drinks such as Lucozade and ‘sports’ beverages like Gatorade.

Last year, we swallowed an astounding 14,585 million litres of soft drinks, an increase of more than 4 per cent in 12 months, according to the British Soft Drinks Association.

Our spending rose by nearly 6 per cent to £13,880 million in 2010 — the fastest growth in the past seven years.

We clearly like our soft drinks. But the medical evidence is stacking up against them.

Last week, a study suggested they can cause weight gain and long-term health problems if drunk every day for as little as a month.

The research, by Bangor University and published in the European Journal Of Nutrition, reported that soft drinks actually alter metabolism, so that our muscles use sugar for energy instead of burning fat.

It seems that exposure to liquid sugar causes genes in our muscles to change their behaviour, perhaps permanently.

Not only do we pile on weight, but our metabolism becomes less efficient and less able to cope with rises in blood sugar, say the researchers.

This, in turn, increases the risk of type 2 diabetes.

‘Having seen all the medical evidence, I don’t touch soft drinks now,’ says Dr Hans-Peter Kubis, a biological scientist and expert in exercise nutrition who led the research.

'I think drinks with added sugar are, frankly, evil.’

In fact, the Bangor study is only the latest in a long line of reports warning of the link between soft drinks and serious health problems.

A study in March, for example, warned that men who drink a standard 12oz can of sugar-sweetened beverage every day have a 20 per cent higher risk of heart disease compared to men who don’t drink any sugar-sweetened drinks.

The research published in the American Heart Association’s journal, Circulation, followed more than 42,000 men for 22 years.

Blood tests found soft-drink fans had higher levels of harmful inflammation in their blood vessels, and lower levels of ‘good’ HDL cholesterol.

The study suggested this may be a result of the sugar rush these soft drinks cause.

This increased sudden sugar load on the body may also explain research which found just two carbonated drinks (330ml each) every week appears to double the risk of pancreatic cancer, reported the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.

Meanwhile, soft drinks with high levels of fruit juice may cause severe long-term liver damage, according to an Israeli study.

People who drank two cans of these drinks a day were five times more likely to develop fatty liver disease — a precursor to cirrhosis and liver cancer.

In the Journal of Hepatology, the lead investigator, Dr Nimer Assy, warned high levels of fructose fruit sugar in the drinks can overwhelm the liver, leading it to accumulate fat.

Perhaps most disturbing is the picture emerging from various studies that suggest sugary drinks expose children to a perfect storm of obesity threats.

Four years ago, researchers at University College London’s Health Behaviour Research Centre discovered a powerful — and lucrative — effect sugary soft drinks have on youngsters.

The study of 346 children aged around 11 found drinking soft drinks makes them want to drink more often, even when they’re not actually thirsty — and that their preference is for more sugary drinks.

Children who drank water or fruit juice in the tests didn’t show this unnecessary need to drink.

The researchers expressed concern that this may set the children’s habits for life — in particular, giving them an ‘increased preference for sweet things in the mouth’, without compensating for the extra calories by eating less food.

More recent research suggests fizzy drinks may sway children’s tastes towards high-calorie, high-salt food.

Part of this worrying phenomenon was revealed earlier this year by Oregon University investigators.

Their study of 75 children aged between three and five found those given sugary soft drinks avoided eating raw vegetables such as carrots or red peppers, but went for foods high in calories, such as chips.

This did not happen when the children were given water to drink.

The researchers said this wasn’t about simple fussiness. Instead, our tastes for food and drink seem to be shaped in a like-with-like manner.

This discovery comes on top of an earlier finding, by heart experts at St George’s, University of London, that children and teenagers who consume sugary soft drinks are far more likely to prefer foods high in salt.

Dr Kubis believes that liquid sugars not only alter our bodies, but also foster addict-like responses.

‘The body absorbs liquid sugars so much faster because they are more easily taken into the stomach lining, and this rapid intake fires up the body’s pleasure responses,’ he says.

‘At the same time, your brain reduces its desire for the taste of nutrients such as vitamins or minerals,’ says Dr Kubis. This is what makes these sugary drinks so habit-forming.

‘There is a huge overlap between what is addictive behaviour with drugs and the use of sweet food,’ he adds.

‘In lab experiments, even rats who have been made addicted to cocaine will prefer to have a sugary drink instead of cocaine.’

He says sugary drink habits aren’t necessarily an addiction ‘because not all of us suffer withdrawal symptoms when we cut out sugary drinks’.

The story may be different with children, however. ‘With children, there is more evidence of addictive behaviour,’ Dr Kubis says.

‘You get tantrums, restlessness and distress if you stop their soft-drink consumption.’

This may be because children’s developing brains are more prone to developing sugar cravings, or because children’s desires are simply more transparent.

Sadly, there’s little point shifting from sugary soft drinks to ‘healthy alternatives’ such as fizzy real-fruit lemonades or fruit-juice drinks, says Dr Kubis, because the liquid sugar problem still remains.

‘Posh soft drinks with real fruit might be marketed as healthy, but this may be rather cynical, as such drinks can be just as dangerous,’ he explains, adding that some fruit drinks contain more sugar than a can of fizz.

Even when it comes to ‘healthy’ sports drinks, the evidence is that they’re not only a waste of money, because you don’t need them, but they could also be harmful.

An investigation by the universities of Oxford and Harvard warned that popular brands such as Lucozade and Powerade contain large amounts of sugar and calories which encourage weight gain, the British Medical Journal reported earlier this month.

On top of all this is the damage fizzy drinks can wreak on teeth. A study in the journal General Dentistry in June found that cola is ten times as corrosive as fruit juice in the first three minutes of drinking.

One of the chief culprits is citric acid, which gives tangy drinks their kick.

A study in the British Dental Journal found four cans of fizzy drink a day increased the risk of tooth erosion by 252 per cent.

The drinks industry, of course, has spent countless millions of pounds bombarding us with sophisticated and expensive marketing in order to weld their products in our minds to images of healthiness and fun.

Few who lined the streets of Britain for the Olympic torch procession could have failed to notice the role of Coca-Cola.

The company paid more than £100 million for the exclusive rights to be the official provider of soft drinks at the Games.

The late Coca-Cola chief executive, Roberto Guizueta, said: ‘Eventually, the number-one beverage on Earth will not be tea or coffee or wine or beer. It will be soft drinks — our soft drinks.’

Today, however, there is a growing backlash against soft drinks.

Earlier this month, a group of leading health organisations, including the American Cancer Association, the American Diabetes Association, Yale University’s Rudd Centre for Food Policy and Obesity, and the American Heart Association, called on the U.S. Surgeon-General to investigate the health effects of soda and other sugary drinks.

Soft drinks play a major role in the U.S.’s obesity crisis, the campaigners say, and they want a study into them similar in scale and impact to the Surgeon-General’s landmark report on the dangers of smoking in 1964.

Kathleen Sebelius, the former Governor of Kansas, who campaigns on behalf of the American Cancer Society, declared: ‘An unbiased and comprehensive report on the impact of sugar-sweetened beverages could . . . perhaps begin to change the direction of public behaviour in their choices of food and drinks.’

Legislators are already starting to act. In May, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, announced a ban on serving cartons bigger than 16oz (a pint).

Last year, the Hungarian government imposed a tax on unhealthy drinks and foods.

And, earlier this year, France imposed a tax on sugary soft drinks after a study found that more than 20 million of its citizens are overweight.

Health campaigners here are pressing for a similar tax. Researchers at Oxford University calculate that a 20 per cent tax on soft drinks would reduce obesity and overweight in Britain by 1 per cent — roughly 400,000 cases across Britain.

‘We don’t get anything like that level of success from trying to educate people about healthy eating,’ says researcher Dr Mike Rayner.

‘I am not suggesting that people should never have soft drinks,’ he stresses. ‘I myself like drinking them. But they really should be restricted to weekends and holiday treats.’

Understandably, the idea of a tax has met stiff opposition from the British Soft Drinks Association.

Its spokesman, Richard Laming, argues that ‘soft drinks, like any other food or drink, can be consumed in moderation as part of a balanced diet, and there is no reason to tax them’.

On top of that, he says, UK soft drink manufacturers are producing more low-sugar products.

‘About half of the soft drinks market in the UK is made up of reduced or zero calorie drinks nowadays.’

Nor is Mr Laming impressed by last week’s Bangor University findings.

‘The study lasted only four weeks and had only a tiny sample size of just 11 people. That is no basis on which to make claims about effects that last a lifetime.’

Dr Kubis acknowledges the study’s limitations and says that he is working to produce a much larger trial to see if the findings are confirmed in people who start consuming large amounts of sugary soda.

In this, he faces one significant problem.

‘It is difficult to find young people who have not previously been exposed to a lot of soft drinks,’ he laments.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2181290/Having-seen-evidence-I-dont-touch-fizzy-drinks-Frankly-theyre-evil.html
The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall. - Che Guevara

Resistance Films Youtube Channel

TriWooOx Podcast
Reply
07-31-2012, 11:42 PM,
#2
RE: Having seen the evidence, I don't touch fizzy drinks any more - leading biologist
The title mislead me a little bit. I was thinking the article would be on carbonation, and not just sugary drinks. Most of the damage said in the article is caused by the sugar, specifically, but not limited to, high fructose corn syrup. Personally, I prefer a nice company called Martinelli's, which makes non-alcoholic carbonated juices. Sourced from the USA, they even bring in their own spring water, so as not to use fluoridated tap. Conveniently, I am sipping on some right now. While the juice does naturally have sugar (so do not drink too much) there is no sugar added. Right now, while sipping on Apple-Cranberry, there are three ingredients: 100% pure US grown carbonated apple juice, water (to reconstitute the cranberry), and cranberry concentrate.

Another drink I am very fond of (and plan to make my own soon, it is pricy!) is kombucha. A fermented tea, the alcohol in it is miniscule. Full of probiotics, it is a very healthy live drink. It also has a vinegar taste, so if you are not a fan of vinegar, stay away.

I tend to like both better than any soda I ever had, anyways.
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - Henry L. Mencken

I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant. - Henry L. Mencken
Reply
08-01-2012, 03:37 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-01-2012, 03:38 PM by nwo2012.)
#3
RE: Having seen the evidence, I don't touch fizzy drinks any more - leading biologist
Nothing wrong with sugar, its the garbage HFCS and carcinogens such as Caramel 160d and aspartame or the phosphoric acid, BPA lining etc that make this shit toxic. I have not consumed ANY soft drinks in over 2 years and proud of it.

lol at this from Coca Cola website

Quote:Aluminum Can Safety

Coca-Cola safety & BPAThe Coca-Cola Company is very aware of the highly publicized concerns and viewpoints that have been expressed about Bisphenol A (BPA) in recent years. In fact, we have had many discussions with advocacy groups, consumers, scientists, government regulators, elected officials, suppliers and others about Coca-Cola and other aluminum cans lined with BPA.

Our scientists, and the independent scientists with whom we have consulted, have thoroughly reviewed the data and have assured us that our beverage cans pose no public health risk. In addition, government regulators around the world have reviewed the science independently and have repeatedly stated that current levels of exposure to BPA through beverage packaging pose no health risk to the general population, including children.

Our top priority is to ensure the safety and quality of our products and packaging through rigorous standards that meet or exceed government requirements. If we had any concerns about the safety of our packaging, we would not use it.

In all of our discussions with stakeholders we have been very transparent and fully disclosed non-proprietary information to assure them that our products are safe. At the same time, we also are prepared to protect our business in any eventuality. All of the information we can share at this time is available here as well as through our assessment document. We encourage our consumers, shareowners, and other stakeholders to review this information as we want them to be as confident in the safety of our products as we are. We will update this information if and when there are any significant developments.

Why do you maintain that the levels of BPA found in aluminum Coke cans are safe?

The clear scientific consensus is that there is no risk to the public from the miniscule amounts of BPA found in Coca-Cola or other beverage cans.

That consensus is accurately reflected in the opinions expressed by those regulatory agencies whose missions and responsibilities are to protect the public's health.

Regulatory agencies in Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand and the United States all have conducted extensive reviews and determined that current levels of exposure to BPA through food and beverage packaging do not pose a health risk to the general population. We believe it is reasonable and appropriate to take the lead from these agencies that regulate our business.
Reply
08-01-2012, 05:23 PM,
#4
Heart  RE: Having seen the evidence, I don't touch fizzy drinks any more - leading biologist
(08-01-2012, 03:37 PM)nwo2012 Wrote: Nothing wrong with sugar,

Sugar is poison when over-indulged.

In the early 80's my wife almost died from sugar-induced hypoglycemia.

Don't think sugar is benign just because scientists were able to design something nastier.

Sugar is all-natural like nicotine. Mmmmm. I would love to have a nice, sweet dose of 100% natural, plant-based, pesticide-free, Non-GMO, straight-from-Mother-Earth nicotine in my brain right now. I won't, but I would like to.
Reply
08-01-2012, 06:44 PM,
#5
RE: Having seen the evidence, I don't touch fizzy drinks any more - leading biologist
(08-01-2012, 03:37 PM)nwo2012 Wrote: Nothing wrong with sugar, its the garbage HFCS and carcinogens such as Caramel 160d and aspartame or the phosphoric acid, BPA lining etc that make this shit toxic. I have not consumed ANY soft drinks in over 2 years and proud of it.

lol at this from Coca Cola website

Quote:Aluminum Can Safety

Coca-Cola safety & BPAThe Coca-Cola Company is very aware of the highly publicized concerns and viewpoints that have been expressed about Bisphenol A (BPA) in recent years. In fact, we have had many discussions with advocacy groups, consumers, scientists, government regulators, elected officials, suppliers and others about Coca-Cola and other aluminum cans lined with BPA.

Our scientists, and the independent scientists with whom we have consulted, have thoroughly reviewed the data and have assured us that our beverage cans pose no public health risk. In addition, government regulators around the world have reviewed the science independently and have repeatedly stated that current levels of exposure to BPA through beverage packaging pose no health risk to the general population, including children.

Our top priority is to ensure the safety and quality of our products and packaging through rigorous standards that meet or exceed government requirements. If we had any concerns about the safety of our packaging, we would not use it.

In all of our discussions with stakeholders we have been very transparent and fully disclosed non-proprietary information to assure them that our products are safe. At the same time, we also are prepared to protect our business in any eventuality. All of the information we can share at this time is available here as well as through our assessment document. We encourage our consumers, shareowners, and other stakeholders to review this information as we want them to be as confident in the safety of our products as we are. We will update this information if and when there are any significant developments.

Why do you maintain that the levels of BPA found in aluminum Coke cans are safe?

The clear scientific consensus is that there is no risk to the public from the miniscule amounts of BPA found in Coca-Cola or other beverage cans.

That consensus is accurately reflected in the opinions expressed by those regulatory agencies whose missions and responsibilities are to protect the public's health.

Regulatory agencies in Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand and the United States all have conducted extensive reviews and determined that current levels of exposure to BPA through food and beverage packaging do not pose a health risk to the general population. We believe it is reasonable and appropriate to take the lead from these agencies that regulate our business.

I would have to agree with Charlie a bit on the sugar. While sugar is natural, and nothing is wrong with it in moderate amounts, too much can be unhealthy. Just look at raw fruit vegans, especially this group of banana-brains. Fructose, unlike glucose, puts strain on the liver to process. While it can process a fair amount, so eating fruit or drinking juice will not kill you, too much can over-do it.

As far as the coca-cola goes, that is hilarious. But of course, what is to be expected when this is happening?

(08-01-2012, 05:23 PM)CharliePrime Wrote:
(08-01-2012, 03:37 PM)nwo2012 Wrote: Nothing wrong with sugar,

Sugar is poison when over-indulged.

In the early 80's my wife almost died from sugar-induced hypoglycemia.

Don't think sugar is benign just because scientists were able to design something nastier.

Sugar is all-natural like nicotine. Mmmmm. I would love to have a nice, sweet dose of 100% natural, plant-based, pesticide-free, Non-GMO, straight-from-Mother-Earth nicotine in my brain right now. I won't, but I would like to.

Now, while sugar is addictive, I would not say it is a major problem. Definitely not a poison. If one eats a natural diet, they will not be ingesting near the amounts of sugar to damage the body, and also, the brain needs some sugar to operate. That is, unless, you are eating something like 30 bananas a day or something...

Besides, nicotine is not as bad as they say. While it is mildly addictive, and contributes to minor health problems, the sad truth is this whole country loves petro-chemicals... So, they blame the one thing natural in the 600+ ingredient cocktail known as a cigarette - the leaf. But I assume you already know that, Charlie.
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - Henry L. Mencken

I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant. - Henry L. Mencken
Reply
08-01-2012, 06:53 PM,
#6
RE: Having seen the evidence, I don't touch fizzy drinks any more - leading biologist
(08-01-2012, 06:44 PM)Anarchist Wrote: Fructose, unlike glucose, puts strain on the liver to process.

Pure glucose is very rarely used in foods. Table sugar is sucrose, not glucose. Sucrose is harder to digest than glucose or fructose.
[Image: randquote.png]
Reply
08-01-2012, 11:51 PM,
#7
RE: Having seen the evidence, I don't touch fizzy drinks any more - leading biologist
(08-01-2012, 06:53 PM)yeti Wrote:
(08-01-2012, 06:44 PM)Anarchist Wrote: Fructose, unlike glucose, puts strain on the liver to process.

Pure glucose is very rarely used in foods. Table sugar is sucrose, not glucose. Sucrose is harder to digest than glucose or fructose.

Agreed completely. Fructose, however, is usually what is used in sodas (HFCS/CS), and is also what is in fruits. Sucrose occurs naturally, but it is hard on the liver as well. Which is why sugar is not bad, but too much can be bad. Like 30 bananas a day! LOL
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - Henry L. Mencken

I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant. - Henry L. Mencken
Reply
08-02-2012, 05:51 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-02-2012, 05:52 AM by nwo2012.)
#8
RE: Having seen the evidence, I don't touch fizzy drinks any more - leading biologist
That is your opinions or from studies that find that. I disagree and there are many studies showing sugar is healthy. I have been following a hig sugar and protein diet for 3 months and never felt better. Thyroid function is the best it has ever been. Main sources are orange juice, honey and milk. This is how I have reversed autoimmune diseases of friends and work colleagues, with added pregnenolone, progesterone, T3 and T4.
Dr Ray Peat is genius.
You are entitled to your opinions or believe MSM or Mercola BS but I know differently from experience.

Also diabetics have been cured in this manner.
Reply
08-02-2012, 06:23 AM,
#9
RE: Having seen the evidence, I don't touch fizzy drinks any more - leading biologist
(08-02-2012, 05:51 AM)nwo2012 Wrote: That is your opinions or from studies that find that. I disagree and there are many studies showing sugar is healthy. I have been following a hig sugar and protein diet for 3 months and never felt better. Thyroid function is the best it has ever been. Main sources are orange juice, honey and milk. This is how I have reversed autoimmune diseases of friends and work colleagues, with added pregnenolone, progesterone, T3 and T4.
Dr Ray Peat is genius.
You are entitled to your opinions or believe MSM or Mercola BS but I know differently from experience.

Also diabetics have been cured in this manner.

This is the first I have ever heard of a high sugar/protein diet. Can you please explain or post links? I really have nothing against sugar in moderate amounts, but when one looks at the modern day... I know it is all the processing and the PUFAs, and from personal experience when I cut out processed sugars (HFCS et al), I lost 35 pounds alone from that. I am a fan of starches, which are sugars, so long as they are simple and not complex. Please provide more information, as I am very interested.
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - Henry L. Mencken

I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant. - Henry L. Mencken
Reply
08-02-2012, 04:24 PM,
#10
RE: Having seen the evidence, I don't touch fizzy drinks any more - leading biologist
It's hard to link to the diet but pm me your email and I can point you to websites discussing this method. Start reading his articles, this guy is way ahead of his time and completely against mainstream science, Big Pharma etc. Here's a good sugar article.
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/sugar-issues.shtml
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Horrific New Evidence Of China Organ Harvesting Revealed Ognir 3 1,014 03-05-2014, 12:35 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  GMO Researchers Attacked, Evidence Denied, and a Population at Risk h3rm35 3 2,088 09-20-2012, 10:22 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Four fatal pieces of evidence icosaface 0 1,075 09-21-2011, 02:13 PM
Last Post: icosaface
Information Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg - NASA, WWF, IPCC, NIWA, GISS & NOAA Evidence Mounts FastTadpole 28 9,287 08-30-2011, 02:09 AM
Last Post: rsol
  Sun's Output to Fall ... Leading to a Mini Ice Age? icosaface 0 693 06-19-2011, 04:01 PM
Last Post: icosaface
  Forensic evidence emerges that e.coli superbug was bioengineered to produce fataliti TriWooOx 1 1,139 06-15-2011, 04:53 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
Information Strong New Evidence H1N1 Vaccine Shows a Direct Link with Fetal Death FastTadpole 0 779 09-21-2010, 11:44 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Scientist leading GM crop test defends links to US biotech giant Monsanto TriWooOx 1 837 07-19-2010, 01:21 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  New evidence for man-made global warming TriWooOx 2 876 04-01-2010, 05:49 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Chemtrail Evidence icosaface 0 777 01-22-2010, 07:17 PM
Last Post: icosaface

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)