Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Science

Is the Can Worse Than the Soda? 388

Posted by Soulskill
from the drink-slurm-it's-highly-addictive dept.
DevotedSkeptic sends this excerpt about research that found a correlation between the use of a common food-packaging chemical and obesity rates. "Since the 1960s, manufacturers have widely used the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) in plastics and food packaging. Only recently, though, have scientists begun thoroughly looking into how the compound might affect human health—and what they've found has been a cause for concern. Starting in 2006, a series of studies, mostly in mice, indicated that the chemical might act as an endocrine disruptor (by mimicking the hormone estrogen), cause problems during development and potentially affect the reproductive system, reducing fertility. After a 2010 Food and Drug Administration report warned that the compound could pose an especially hazardous risk for fetuses, infants and young children, BPA-free water bottles and food containers started flying off the shelves. In July, the FDA banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups, but the chemical is still present in aluminum cans, containers of baby formula and other packaging materials. Now comes another piece of data on a potential risk from BPA but in an area of health in which it has largely been overlooked: obesity. A study by researchers from New York University, published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, looked at a sample of nearly 3,000 children and teens across the country and found a 'significant' link between the amount of BPA in their urine and the prevalence of obesity."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is the Can Worse Than the Soda?

Comments Filter:
  • Silly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @05:00PM (#41393197)

    BPA or not, there is probably a significant link between teens who drink a lot of soda and those that don't. Maybe this obvious correlation is not causation issue is covered in the full publication (I only read the excerpt)... but if not, this is pretty damn stupid.

    There is probably a significant link between the number of fast food wrappers scattered around someones home and obesity, but that doesn't mean the ink in the paper is to blame.

    At the absolute minimum, "worse than the soda" is pretty unlikely. Soda is definitely bad for you, whereas BPA _might_ be bad young children and infants.

    And in general, I think while environmental factors do probably contribute in a small way to obesity, it seems silly to worry about these things when the real causes are pretty damn obvious: eating wrong and getting no exercise. That bit o` BPA you drank probably made no difference, but your lifestyle of sitting in a chair all day at the office, then going home and sitting on a different chair until bed while eating a whopper probably made a huge difference.

    • Re:Silly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @05:09PM (#41393295)

      Let's assume BPA is bad. The question is, is it worse than no BPA? The reasons cans are lined with plastic are to prevent botulism and to keep the contents from eating through the cans.

      Really, though, there's no reason we need to keep doing this. Just switch everything back to glass. The occasional shattering bottle is probably less of a danger to society than the constant poisoning through food and drinks.

      • Re:Silly (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MrEricSir (398214) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @05:16PM (#41393341) Homepage

        The question is, is it worse than no BPA? The reasons cans are lined with plastic are to prevent botulism and to keep the contents from eating through the cans.

        Or, you know, we could be lining our canned food items with something that's safe.

        • Re:Silly (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @06:04PM (#41393777)

          Up until the late 1970s cans had a corrosion-resistant liner made from wax. This was replaced by bpa-based lacquers - I worked for a coatings vendor at this time who watched their business disappear due to this shift. Wax coatings were sprayed in just before the product, the BPA finish went on at the coil plant or can maker. To some extent it just pushed the liability upstream. The coatings we made we resistant to pretty much everything outside of aromatic solvents and heat. Depressing to see that what replaced them leeched chemicals into the food. Guess this is our version of the roman lead cooking pots.

          • Re:Silly (Score:5, Interesting)

            by potpie (706881) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @11:38PM (#41395731) Journal
            Contrary to popular belief, the Romans knew about lead poisoning and figured out ways to avoid it. For instance, aqueducts were lined with lead to make them waterproof. New aqueducts were mandated to run for a certain amount of time before water was drawn from them. In that time, the Romans knew, the minerals in the hard water would deposit on the lead and form a protective coating. Nevertheless, lead shavings were used as a seasoning on food. You may say that's horrendously stupid in a society that knows about lead poisoning, but then there's cigarettes today.
      • Re:Silly (Score:5, Interesting)

        by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @05:27PM (#41393435) Homepage Journal

        Let's assume BPA is bad. The question is, is it worse than no BPA? The reasons cans are lined with plastic are to prevent botulism and to keep the contents from eating through the cans.

        Really, though, there's no reason we need to keep doing this. Just switch everything back to glass. The occasional shattering bottle is probably less of a danger to society than the constant poisoning through food and drinks.

        Not to mention, things just plain taste better when coming from a glass container.

        Yes, I know that's entirely anecdotal, but instead of having your normal, knee-jerk reaction of pointing out the obvious, I implore the /. audience to go get a can of your favorite soda, and a glass bottle of the same, and do your own taste test.

        • Re:Silly (Score:4, Interesting)

          by platypusfriend (1956218) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @05:35PM (#41393509)
          Beer tastes better from a can, by a lot. The seal of the metal cap on a glass bottle is inferior to the metal-on-metal seal of a can. So, in addition to less UV radiation (fluorescent lights, Sun) reaching the isomerized hop alpha acids through the glass of a bottle, a metal can just plain ol' keeps more oxygen out. And that helps keep your beer fresh. Don't just take my word for it, though!.. Try a blind can-vs-bottle test, of the exact same beers, for yourself. It's really interesting.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Brian Feldman (350)

            What "beer" can you get in both a bottle or a can?

            • Re:Silly (Score:4, Informative)

              by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @05:52PM (#41393683) Homepage

              Sierra Nevada Pale Ale:

              This isn't a Bud:
              http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/sierra-nevada-pale-ale-bottle-can/365/ [ratebeer.com]

              And recently, it's being sold in bottles and cans -- I've seen it my local supermarkets:
              http://www.craftcans.com/sierra-nevada-pale-alesierra-nevada-brewing-company [craftcans.com]

            • by rednip (186217)

              Plenty, but you might have to look a little as few retailers even have the space to sell both for anything but some domestics. Often the good beers are only sold in cans in places or near them, that prohibit glass containers but allow alcohol.

              It's true that light and air are among the worst enemies of liquid bread and that canned is considered 'better' by a certain crowd. However, one could argue that a bottled beer is kept in the dark both in it's package and in the fridge. Also the cap isn't really tha

              • by Lumpy (12016)

                "there is a vacuum seal, that you even hear released, just like you do in a can."

                of your beer has a vacuum seal, buy better beer. All of my beers are under pressure, a LOT of pressure, from 12-18psi of pressure in them... the CO2 carbonation in it does that.

                If you have a vacuum seal you are drinking FLAT beer or something that is not beer.

            • Re:Silly (Score:5, Informative)

              by BetterSense (1398915) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @06:18PM (#41393907)
              Shiner Bock
              Heineken
              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by Evtim (1022085)

                The bosses of Amstel, Heineken and Grolsh are meeting in a cafe (probably for price-fixing). The waiter comes and the Heineken boss orders Heineken beer. The Amstel boss orders Amstel and the Grolsh boss orders one Amstel and one Heineken!! Noticing the incredulous stares of the others he says "Oh, it is too early for a beer".

                Seriously though, why does it take at least a decade before something that is well known to scientist finds its place in the public domain, especially when the data is vitally importan

            • Guinness.

              But if you must get guinness that isn't on tap, the bottle does a better job because of the rocket widget....

              • by adolf (21054)

                The last 12-pack of Guinness bottles I bought had no rocket widget, but instead some fancy verbiage on the package about how they decided that it wasn't necessary.

              • Guinness took out the rocket widgets from bottles about a year or so ago, while at the same time replacing the nitrogen heavy gas mix with pure carbon dioxide.

                The result is that Guinness from a bottle now tastes like complete ass and if you poor it out you'll notice the head looks much more like Coke-Cola then anything you might call stout.

                The cans still have the widget and the right gas and still taste great. Or just drink Murphy's, it's a much better stout then Guinness anyway.

            • by Sinryc (834433)
              Many diffrent kinds. New Belgium Fat Tire, Sierra Nevada Torpedo, Abita Amber or Purple Haze, Long Trail Ale, Harpoon IPA, Paulaner Hefeweizen... and that i just to name a few.
          • Re:Silly (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Nadaka (224565) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @05:40PM (#41393565)

            Sorry, but no. Canned beer is worse than bottled beer is worse than tap beer.

            • Not true at all.

              The key is that the canned beer has to be poured into a glass (the can taste is all because your bare lip is touching freshly sheared aluminum). What do you think a keg is if it isn't a big can? You can get many great beers in cans and I find I prefer them...recently I have had several beers from Surly, an IPA from Two Brothers, and many cans of 312 from Goose Island. The latter is the only one I can do a comparison on (the other two are fantastic, but unavailable in bottles) and I thin

            • Re:Silly (Score:5, Funny)

              by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @07:50PM (#41394593) Homepage
              I'm sorry. But I just ran objective tests on various beers using my Mass Beer Spectacle-ometer and it clearly indicated that bottled beer, while better than tap beer, is actually not as good as canned beer. It also indicated that Hillary Clinton is hot.
              • by mjwx (966435)

                It also indicated that Hillary Clinton is hot.

                So she found that radioactive rod that was lost in Texas last week?

                Didn't anyone tell her not to open it?

            • Sorry, but no. Canned beer is worse than bottled beer is worse than tap beer.

              Modded "informative"? As a homebrewer and craft beer connoisseur, this is totally false. Let's not judge a book by its cover, eh? Canned beer--and really most other canned food--used to be taste awfully worse than its non-canned counterparts, at least before the advent of plastic lined cans... Now-a-days, you can buy some really fantastic craft beer in cans. Moreover, it has fewer detrimental effects due to light spoilage (aluminum being opaque and all), and you can also take it to places you can't take

          • by tsotha (720379)
            The problem is aluminum has an unpleasant taste, so even if what you say is true, it only matters if you pour your beer into a glass before you drink it.
          • by Urza9814 (883915)

            Oh sweet jesus, are you crazy? I've done the test -- I'd just flown in for a job interview, I'd already gotten lost trying to find the hotel, it was late, and I was from a state that didn't usually allow beer sales in gas stations...so while I was picking up my gas station dinner, I figured 'fuck it I'll get a bigass can of beer!'...got a Yuengling Lager, which is far from my favorite beer but certainly drinkable in a bottle...in the can it was quite possibly the worst beer I've ever had.

            There's a reason RE

          • by bloodhawk (813939)
            I completely disagree, beer definitely tastes better from a bottle, I find the can seems to do something nasty to the taste, similar to soda cans. beer is also best drunk while relatively freshly bottled and you should never store it in the light anyway.
      • Let's assume BPA is bad. The question is, is it worse than no BPA?

        Well, gee, maybe someone should do some research on the subject.

      • ...or buy your pop in Big Gulp cup. Sorry NYC.

    • Re:Silly (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AuralityKev (1356747) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @05:12PM (#41393319)
      I'd also like to see the stats on HFCS/sugar ratio in sodas from the 1960's to now graphed right alongside the BPA situation. Have the sodas themselves changed over time? I'd think that would have much more of an impact, along with sitting in a chair all day and eating whoppers.
      • by Anrego (830717) *

        Even if they started using cane sugar rather than HFCS, it might make a difference.

        I blame the prevelance of really shitty food and the difficulty of finding decent food more than the packaging it comes in.

        • by Arterion (941661)

          From all I can tell, HFCS is almost identical to sucrose metabolically. Okay, there is a very, very small amount of extra energy used when metabolizing the sucrose: the bond between the fructose and glucose molecules has to be broken. With HFCS, you have molecules of fructose and molecules of glucose. Interestingly, the ratios of fructose:glucose are almost the same. Sucrose is 50:50 while HFCS is usally 55:45, about the same as honey.

          It's also worth pointing out that fructose tastes sweeter than glucose, a

      • Re:Silly (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rednip (186217) <rednip@NOSpam.gmail.com> on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @06:16PM (#41393883) Journal
        When I was a kid, the McDonald's large was the size of their smallest adult cup today, and the largest sandwich you could buy was a single quarter pound of meat.
        • by Chuckstar (799005)

          And that original iconic Coca-Cola bottle was 8 ounces.

        • by NeoMorphy (576507)

          When I was a kid, the McDonald's large was the size of their smallest adult cup today, and the largest sandwich you could buy was a single quarter pound of meat.

          At least as far back as 1982 you could get a double quarter pounder with cheese, you just had to ask for it and they would make it for you. You would be surprised at how flexable they can be.

    • by Endo13 (1000782)

      Quote from TFA:

      The finding is only a correlation between the amount of BPA in the body and obesity, rather than evidence that one causes the other.

    • by dgatwood (11270)

      At the absolute minimum, "worse than the soda" is pretty unlikely.

      "Worse than the soda" actually isn't unlikely. Hormonal imbalances are a major cause of weight gain. If your hormones are significantly out of balance, you aren't going to achieve a healthy weight even if you practically starve yourself.

      Also, soda is arguably one of the least significant sources of BPA in people's diet. Most people don't drink from cans all that often; they drink soda from 2-liter bottles (which do not contain BPA), from

      • If your hormones are significantly out of balance, you aren't going to achieve a healthy weight even if you practically starve yourself.

        PLUS ONE for this.

        Anyone who has a medical condition treated by large (relative to normal levels) steroid doses on an ongoing basis will tell you this.

    • Re:Silly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tnk1 (899206) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @05:44PM (#41393593)

      Soda in general is absolutely horrible. I've never really been very much overweight, but at one point I got up there enough to decide that I wanted to lose some weight. The first thing I did was cut my soda intake from whenever I felt like it down to "merely" twice a day. I lost ten pounds in just two or three weeks and the weight stayed off. I also cut down on other things afterward, but the weight never came off as fast as it did after first regulating my soda intake.

      Having managed to successfully lose weight when I wanted to without resorting to salads or some special food, the secret to pure weight loss is simply not eating more calories than you need for the day. That's it. As long as you actually do it, as opposed to thinking that eating a gallon of "low fat" ice cream is going to make you lose weight, you always lose weight. There are days it spikes up and down, but if you maintain it day after day, you make steady progress.

      Things like BPA or certain types of food are really only going to be corner cases. Your body cannot store fat from nowhere. If your body uses up all the calories ingested for that day for energy and then some, you will either lose fat or at the very least, you won't have much to make fat from. Endocrine problems are going to be an issue, but even if your body stores extra fat, it gets used up with normal daily exertion, and even more with exercise. You may never be thin, but you're not going to be obese.

      Now, the major problem with things like soda isn't that it is soda, it's that it is a high calorie beverage that gives you zero nutritional value. That means to get proteins and nutrients, you have to eat other things which also have calories and you will become hungry for those things because your body won't allow you to fall over dead without letting you know something is missing. You get fat from soda because you have to eat other things with it. That goes even for diet soda (to a lesser extent). It also goes for anything that is high density fat/carbs, but lacks nutrition you need.

      So, if BPA has made an epidemic of anything, I'd say it was more like an epidemic of being "slightly chubby", but not one of obesity.

      • by sjames (1099)

        The counter to that is that I went from 2 liters a day to none at all (I don't even like the taste now) and.....nothing changed.

    • BPA or not, there is probably a significant link between teens who drink a lot of soda and those that don't. Maybe this obvious correlation is not causation issue is covered in the full publication (I only read the excerpt)... but if not, this is pretty damn stupid.

      Yep. From the abstract: "Controlling for race/ethnicity, age, caregiver education, poverty to income ratio, sex, serum cotinine level, caloric intake, television watching, and urinary creatinine level, children in the lowest urinary BPA quartile had a lower estimated prevalence of obesity".

      So apparently they haven't controlled for the soda (or sugar) intake. On the other hand, I'd expect that to be correlated to a number of the factors they did control for.

    • Re:Silly (Score:5, Informative)

      by timeOday (582209) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @06:08PM (#41393817)

      And in general, I think while environmental factors do probably contribute in a small way to obesity, it seems silly to worry about these things when the real causes are pretty damn obvious: eating wrong and getting no exercise.

      Oh boy, thanks for sharing your tremendously valuable Common Sense with us.

      In fact this study is shocking and here is why (in bold):

      The researchers pulled data from the 2003 to 2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, and after controlling for differences in ethnicity, age, caregiver education, income level, sex, caloric intake, television viewing habits and other factors, they found that children and adolescents with the highest levels of BPA in their urine had a 2.6 times greater chance of being obese than those with the lowest levels. Overall, 22.3 percent of those in the quartile with the highest levels of BPA were obese, compared with just 10.3 percent of those in the quartile with the lowest levels of BPA.

      So here is what I pull from the emphasized bits:

      • No, it is not explained by caloric intake. Nor by physical activity (or at least a proxy for it).
      • The effect size is enormous. A 160% increase in risk of obesity!
      • The sample size is large: 10.3% and 22.3% are both relatively large proportions of subjects in the study. So this is almost certainly not a spurious correlation between rare events.

      The idea of significantly impacting the obesity epidemic simply by replacing BPA with something else is hard to believe. But occasionally a technical breakthrough on what was previously considered an issue of character and morality does does occur, and can be revolutionary: consider birth control.

      • Re:Silly (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Chuckstar (799005) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @06:38PM (#41394093)

        It's hard to control for caloric intake. You're relying on people self-reporting.

        Also, contrary to popular myth, all calories are not the same. Your body absorbs much more energy from 100 calories of sugar, for example, than it does from 100 calories of raw vegetables. This is because calorie content is based on laboratory measurements and does not factor in calories lost when food is harder to digest, or when food is not fully digested (in which case the energy is instead absorbed/used by bacteria in the colon).

        • by tibit (1762298)

          Dude, those bacteria must be some pretty vile creatures then. They are converting all this "absorbed/used" energy into what? Heat? Energy of chemical bonds in something that is dumped out? What? Where does that energy magically disappear, and will you sell me some of those bacteria, because I have a whole bunch of uses for them!

          • Re:Silly (Score:5, Informative)

            by Fastolfe (1470) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @08:22PM (#41394791)

            I have no idea if the OP's statements are accurate or not, but just because you consume something that has "100 calories" does not mean your body will metabolize 100 calories of energy. If the food is incompletely digested (perhaps because the food is hard to break down), you will excrete undigested food energy. The method used to determine caloric energy does not resemble the human digestive system, and it is indeed possible for only a portion of the measured food energy to actually be absorbed by the organism consuming it.

        • by timeOday (582209)

          It's hard to control for caloric intake. You're relying on people self-reporting.

          Nope! If your theory is that caloric intake is the real cause, what you must now explain is why misreporting of caloric intake (not caloric intake itself!) would be so strongly correlated with BPA in the bloodstream.

          Some interesting cases to look at would be those with low BPA and high self-reported caloric intake (for example people eating pies or drinking sugared fountain drinks instead of drinking soda from cans), or

    • What if the BPA leads to sitting at home, eating more, less exercise, etc etc. Could be a feedback loop.

    • by Macgrrl (762836)

      Mostly the number of fast food wrappers around our house is a function of being about 2 blocks from a McDonalds and getting them blown into our yard. I get really tired of picking them up every other day.

  • by mewsenews (251487) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @05:01PM (#41393213) Homepage
    Everyone on /. already knows correlation != causation. People that drink 2L bottles of soda on a regular basis are going to high higher BPA and higher obesity.
    • by Bob-taro (996889)

      Everyone on /. already knows correlation != causation. People that drink 2L bottles of soda on a regular basis are going to high higher BPA and higher obesity.

      Actually, that might be a good test - is there a stronger correlation between obesity and cans than 2L bottles?

    • Actually, what they are implying is that people who drink 2L of soda from cans daily will be in a worse state than those who drink 2L of the same soda daily from plastic BPA-free bottles.

      Some individuals would probably be just fine drinking 2L of sugar soda from plastic bottles if they're active enough to burn off the extra calories.

      • Two liters of soda carries in the neighborhood of 800 calories. The usual number quoted is that running burns about 100-120 calories per mile. Roughly speaking, you're gonna pay for that two-liter soda with a seven mile run.

        Need to gain weight fast? One pound of fat = 3500 extra calories. Roughly, eight or nine liters or four six-packs (22 cans) of soda equal one pound. Drink a six-pack a day and you'll be a pound, pound and a half heavier by the end of the week. You'll be four or five pounds overweight by

    • by reverseengineer (580922) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @05:25PM (#41393421)
      Well, they shouldn't, if they're drinking out of 2L bottles, most of which are polyethylene terephthalate and generally do not contain BPA, which is why the focus here is on the epoxy liners of many aluminum cans. They did try to control for caloric intake in the study:

      Controlling for race/ethnicity, age, caregiver education, poverty to income ratio, sex, serum cotinine level, caloric intake, television watching, and urinary creatinine level, children in the lowest urinary BPA quartile had a lower estimated prevalence of obesity (10.3% [95% CI, 7.5%-13.1%]) than those in quartiles 2 (20.1% [95% CI, 14.5%-25.6%]), 3 (19.0% [95% CI, 13.7%-24.2%]), and 4 (22.3% [95% CI, 16.6%-27.9%]).

      However, they also admit in the conclusions, "Explanations of the association cannot rule out the possibility that obese children ingest food with higher BPA content or have greater adipose stores of BPA."

  • Amount in urine (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @05:09PM (#41393291)

    The studies that look at the mount of BPA in urine drive me crazy. They take a group of people, give them some food or liquid with BPA, then freak out when it's in their urine.

    I'll let you in on a little secret here: humans have the ability to excrete BPA. Mice do not. All those studies that show health issues in mice from BPA ingestion are testing on creatures that cannot rid their bodies of the compound.

    • Re:Amount in urine (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kEnder242 (262421) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @05:43PM (#41393585)

      I googled something and found something that disputes your claim that

      humans have the ability to excrete BPA. Mice do not.

      http://healthandenvironmentonline.com/issue-archive/bpa-science-safety-1/ [healthande...online.com]

      Slashdot: A mix between a peer review journal and "bum fights"

  • Did they control for soft drink intake, or did they just compare BPA levels to obesity?

    I mean, it seems like drinking more soda would increase both BPA and obesity, while switching to glass containers isn't going to stop someone from being obese if they drink enough.

    • by sjames (1099)

      Drinking soda would only boost BPA if it's from the can. The far more common plastic soda bottles have no BPA.

  • by Sooner Boomer (96864) <sooner.boomr@gmai l . c om> on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @05:16PM (#41393345) Journal
    And the fork/spoon! They're what made me fat!
  • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @05:18PM (#41393373)

    . . . it's not overeating and lack of exercise. Let's blame the soda can!

    It's sure enough easier than convincing people to eat healthy and get more exercise . . .

    "It's not my fault that I'm fat . . . I was given too much BPA as a child!"

    • by quantaman (517394)

      Having run a few marathons and covering 2000+ km per year I'd dispute the effects of cardiovascular exercise on weight loss (there's a lot of other great reasons to run, weight loss just isn't one of them). High intensity training has some effect (I don't think it's significant though), but a lot of endurance exercise doesn't really affect weight loss.

      Diet however, can make a huge impact, there's a lot of other factors that also make a huge impact (genetics, maybe gut flora, etc), but diet is the only one w

  • and I know who to blame: myself. I just eat too much and don't get enough exercise.

    I think this short 30 second youtube video is appropriate for the discussion, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ihOi56J17Hw [youtube.com]
    • and I know who to blame: myself. I just eat too much and don't get enough exercise.
         

      It's never too late to fix that. I started biking to work 16 years ago. I've dropped from 250# to 160#, and now I even teach spin classes.

      • by Adult film producer (866485) <van@i2pmail.org> on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @06:32PM (#41394031)
        It's probably time for me to change my habits. I'm 270 right now when my optimal genetic weight is probably about 195/200 (as my father and brothers are.) Frankly, sometimes the weight hurts my ankles... I spend way too much time in front of the computer editing video and drinking coffee. Its kind of pathetic.

        Maybe I should take this moment to reflect and do something about it, I know I would be a lot happier if I did.
  • From what i've read in my adventures to bulk up and build muscles BPA is one of those really prevalent xenoestrogens. There are a ton of chemicals in our environment that mimic estrogen, and its effects have been crazy if you look at the effects on sperm counts and not to mention its emasculating effects of men. Soy is in the same class, so if you're a vegetarian watch out. I've also noticed a lot of testosterone creams hitting the market lately, probably to help those old men whose test counts are really l
  • by Tumbleweed (3706) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @05:58PM (#41393729)
    World saved by Mexican Coke! (Coca-Cola, that is).
  • There was a recent confirmation of endocrine-disruptors such as BPA causing breast cancer in the female gene line which is passed on to not just the daughter, but the granddaughter and great grandaughter too... http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n9/full/ncomms2058.html [nature.com]
  • Ergo, they will have more BPA in their systems. Maybe fat stores BPA better too. Doesn't mean boa makes you fat (which is the angle tv news is taking).
  • by TimTucker (982832) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @08:29PM (#41394839) Homepage

    There's also the finding that many types of thermal paper contain much larger amounts of BPA than food packaging:
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/07/28/study-finds-bpa-in-store-receipts-health-effects-as-yet-unclear/ [discovermagazine.com]

    Would be interesting if the link between obesity and eating fast food was only partly due to the food itself and partly due to handling the receipts.

* * * * * THIS TERMINAL IS IN USE * * * * *

Working...