Soft Drinks, Including Sugar-Free, Linked To Increased Risk of Early Death 229
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: People who regularly consume soft drinks have a higher risk of an early death, researchers have found, with the trend seen for both sugared and artificially sweetened drinks. While experts say the study cannot prove soft drinks are a driver of an increased risk of death, they say the work -- which is the largest study of its kind -- supports recent public health efforts to reduce consumption of soft drinks, such as the UK's sugar tax. Writing in the journal Jama Internal Medicine, Dr Neil Murphy, a co-author of the research from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and colleagues report how they analyzed data from more than 450,000 people, 70% of whom were women, across 10 European countries including the UK. Participants had an average age of just over 50, and those with health conditions such as cancer, heart disease or diabetes at the outset were not included in the analysis. Individuals joined the study between 1992 and 2000 and were then followed up for an average of 16 years, during which time more than 41,600 deaths were recorded.
When participants signed up they were asked a number of questions about aspects of their lifestyle such as exercise, smoking and weight as well as diet and nutrition -- including their average consumption of drinks such as fizzy drinks, fruit squash and energy drinks. Fruit juice consumption was not included. The results show 9.3% of those who drank less than one glass of soft drink a month died during the study, compared with 11.5% of those who drank two or more 250ml glasses a day. The team say that once factors such as body mass index, diet, physical activity, smoking and education were taken into account, that translates to a 17% higher risk of death among those consuming two glasses a day compared with those drinking less than one glass a month.
When participants signed up they were asked a number of questions about aspects of their lifestyle such as exercise, smoking and weight as well as diet and nutrition -- including their average consumption of drinks such as fizzy drinks, fruit squash and energy drinks. Fruit juice consumption was not included. The results show 9.3% of those who drank less than one glass of soft drink a month died during the study, compared with 11.5% of those who drank two or more 250ml glasses a day. The team say that once factors such as body mass index, diet, physical activity, smoking and education were taken into account, that translates to a 17% higher risk of death among those consuming two glasses a day compared with those drinking less than one glass a month.
New angle on an old war... (Score:3)
Did they do the test thoroughly enough that we can tell if either Coke or Pepsi products lead to a higher risk of death I wonder...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, exactly, either one.
Re: (Score:2)
..and THIS is what some of you "free speech" assholes on Slashdot want to be allowed to have a goddamned YouTube channel. Fuck all of you, sideways with a rusty E.bola infected chainsaw, you stupid bastards, THIS is the shit you'd have continue to infect our entire civilization. Die, die, die.
So, you hate mass-murderers and are suggesting to mass-murder them? Absolutely hilarious.
Re:New angle on an old war... (Score:4)
I have another suggestion to the Anonymous Coward system. Since you now have to have an account to post as a AC, which is good. With all AC posts linked to a real account now I feel that negative karma should be linked to that account too. You post something stupid, such as the OP, you get to reap the rewards of being modded down for your stupidity. This should help discourage such idiocy in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
" I have another suggestion to the Anonymous Coward system. Since you now have to have an account to post as a AC, which is good. With all AC posts linked to a real account now I feel that negative karma should be linked to that account too. You post something stupid, such as the OP, you get to reap the rewards of being modded down for your stupidity. This should help discourage such idiocy in the future. "
Gonna have to respectfully disagree with this idea.
Here's why:
Reddit is setup this way. Any post you
Re: (Score:3)
Good point. I withdraw the suggestion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:New angle on an old war... (Score:5, Funny)
Did they do the test thoroughly enough that we can tell if either Coke or Pepsi products lead to a higher risk of death I wonder...
This is great news for me!
Now I have a reason to shift from soft drinks to hard liquor!
It's great on corn flakes! Watch the film Taxi Driver for details!
Re: New angle on an old war... (Score:2)
Cereal is grain, liquor is grain. Why is it no one bats an eye when someone eats a bowl of cereal at 8am, but pull out a glass of whiskey at 8am and suddenly you're an alcoholic.
Not much of a difference? (Score:3)
9.3% once a month vs 11.5% of two a day isn't much of anything.
Re:Not much of a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Until they can identify exactly what is doing people in early, I will continue to ignore them. Is it the carbonated water? The food coloring? Chemicals leaked from the soda containers?
It seems like it can't be the flavoring, since they claim these results across brands. It also can't be sugar, since sugar-free was indicted. It can't be water? (or can it? are these bottling companies using sketchy water?)
These statistics on their own aren't worth acting on.
Re:Not much of a difference? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a thought: Sugar and artificial sweeteners are both bad for you.
https://www.health.harvard.edu... [harvard.edu]
https://www.smithsonianmag.com... [smithsonianmag.com]
Re: (Score:3)
So by extension fruits are not good for you, but fruit juices are especially bad. Unfortunately, they excluded fruit juice from their study. Weird coincidence, isn't it?
This makes me think the study was being paid by a company who sells fruit juice but not soft drinks. But since all the big soft drinks mega-corporation bought almost all the fruit juice companies, I can't see which one it could be.
Re: (Score:3)
That is correct. You're catching on.
The nutrients and fiber in fruit make eating them in small quantities acceptable, but fruit juice is bad for you. The amount of sugar in fruit is small enough that it won't hurt you in moderation, but not so in juice.
Re:Not much of a difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
No. The sugar is in a greater concentration and there's none of the flesh of the fruit to provide fiber and to fill you up. So, people who drink fruit juice tend to take in a lot more sugar than if they ate the fruit. For example, you wouldn't squeeze one orange only, because it would barely fill a small juice glass a quarter of the way.
Sugar is bad for you, whether you take it in fruit or in a fruit roll-up. The question is "what is the trade-off?"
Re: (Score:3)
There are negative effects associated with all of the following individually:
1. High sugar consumption
2. Artificial sweeteners
3. Carbonated beverages
Since every soda is guaranteed to supply two items from that list and zero nutrition, they are really bad choices.
And, yes, drinking lots of juice is also not healthy. Moderation is key. A single glass with breakfast or dinner is fine---but an extra 100g of sugar from 2-3 large cups/bottles per day is bad.
Re:Not much of a difference? (Score:5, Informative)
Note that the Harvard article linked to a prospective cohort study, and the Smithsonian article linked to a test-tube study; neither of which are designed to show causation, but mainly lay out hypotheses for future studies - preferably randomized controlled trials. These low-to-medium quality evidence [wikipedia.org] studies couldn't for example show whether sweeteners leads to overweight, or if being overweight leads to consuming sweeteners.
For medical topics, try to use systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials as much as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
They are comparing two groups, one that drinks 60x more soda than the other.
What kind of person drinks less than one soda per month?
What kind of person drinks more than 2 sodas/day (60/month)?
Aside from soda consumption, do you really think these two groups are the same?
I suspect the "less than one/month" eats a little better, gets a bit more exercise, etc. - I could be wrong, but that is a common thing I see in my circle of friends/co-workers who choose to not drink sodas.
Re: Not much of a difference? (Score:2)
What kind of person drinks less than one soda per month?
People who don't drink soda at all? I don't and neither does the woman.
Re: Not much of a difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
The question was about the kind of person who does that, compared to the kind of person who has 2+ per day.
Most likely, non-soda drinkers have on average a completely different lifestyle than the heavy soda drinkers. Many other factors could play a role in the health outcome. A couple of these factors are measured (crudely) but many others are not.
Re: Not much of a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the point of many thousands or tens of thousands in a study -- so you can get sufficient data points for every strange combo of variables.
There's an often ignored thing called the tyrrany of dimensions. If you look at this as a study of grouping like data points, in 2d that's fine and will be readily apparent. Adding a third variable i.e. dimension means you need more to make sure you cover that as well, with statistical certainty.
By the time you get to 20 dimensions, you don't have enough people in the whole world.
Re: (Score:3)
By the time you get to 20 dimensions, you don't have enough people in the whole world.
Correct. That's why you should never take too much stock in even a large study. There are general trends that ring true, but for an individual it's impossible to say whether you fit the genetic/environmental profile that causes the effect.
Re: (Score:2)
"What kind of person drinks less than one soda per month?"
Um, the health conscious? People with out weight problems? Me?
If I'm going to spike my blood sugar levels with all the attached repercussions I better be getting drunk.
60x difference in consumption (Score:2)
Yeah, I get your question: what else these groups have for differences between them appart from drink consumption behaviour. But...
they've covered already quite a few. I'm not saying there can't be a cofounding factor, just that I'm out of i
Re: (Score:2)
they've covered already quite a few. I'm not saying there can't be a cofounding factor, just that I'm out of ideas.
For example, look at the paper, and they have diet item "red and processed meat" lumped together in one category, but there could be a big difference between people who eat steak and those that eat salami pizza, hamburgers, and hot dogs.
Re: (Score:2)
It also can't be sugar, since sugar-free was indicted. It can't be water? (or can it? are these bottling companies using sketchy water?)
In sugar free is indicted worse
. Higher all-cause mortality was found for participants who consumed 2 or more glasses per day (vs consumers of
These statistics on their own aren't worth acting on.
A 26% drop in all-cause mortality over 16-20 years isn't worth acting on? How little are you valuing a life?
Re: (Score:2)
A 26% drop in all-cause mortality over 16-20 years isn't worth acting on?
It's a correlation, not a causation. As such, the word "drop" is not correct, because it implies a change. However, there was no change. There were only two different groups of people, with different lifestyles.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is mostly my point. This statistic does not say anything about soda, it says things about soda drinkers . Therefore cutting soda out of my diet is not necessarily going to cause me to live longer.
I'm not going to give up soda because of this survey. I'm already a soda drinker much like an AA member 12 years on the wagon, who is and always will be an alcoholic. Unlike the AA member, there's no evidence at all that the soda is the part of my lifestyle that is unhealthy. It's probably also the burger and
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect this is one of those correlation != causation
If you look at a huge chunk of baby boomers and older genX-ers, they were brought up on a low exercise lifestyle, highly processed diet. It's no surprise that the people who drink soda also fall into the no exercise/pizza rolls for breakfast crowd. I don't think there's a lot of people who only drink water but eat pop tarts and bagel bites as their two primary food groups.
diet, fitness and bodyass taken into accoubt (Score:3)
from the summary:
so at least obese, funk-food eating fats are taken into account.
if there is a cofounding factor (still possible) it should be something else (though I'm presently out of ideas).
...income, maybe? (Score:2)
though I'm presently out of ideas
on second thoughs:
maybe trying to correlate over income to see if "socio-economic class" is the cofounding factor?
Re: (Score:2)
It's likely a class thing. For various reasons -- more demanding jobs, less money to move from polluted areas, etc. -- working class folks in the US have a high risk of early death. Middle class folks tend to consider all forms of pop childish, to the point that if you go to a restaurant that primarily serves the middle class it will may not serve pop at all. Stories like this are another example. College-educated journos have no problem reporting that pop is bad, with very little critical thought applied t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Causality (Score:2)
To over-generalise, healthier people tend to have healthier lifestyles and live longer. I don't associate regular eating of sweet crap, liquid or solid, with a healthier lifestyle. Someone with a sweet tooth is downing sugary or HFCSy stuff aside from the sugar free soft drinks, which replaces other items in the diet.
So shirley all you can say is in Venn terms the set of regular soda drinkers doesn't overlap much the set of long-livers.
Too many possible reasons to pick the key one.
Re: (Score:3)
The driving force behind these numbers is likely a correlation to overall lifestyle, and lifestyle change is a big deal. Skipping a soft drink every other day and thinking you're "fixing" anything is not gonna cut it - you're not lifting the load, you're t
Re:Not much of a difference? (Score:4, Informative)
Given that wide range, a change of 17% is just noise.
Re:Not much of a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that wide range, a change of 17% is just noise.
That, and: I'm automatically suspicious that the didn't do fruit juice as well. Or tea and coffee.
To me it seems like somebody has a hidden agenda.
The chart's kinda bogus (Score:2)
Re:The chart's kinda bogus (Score:4, Informative)
Specifically cooking things at high heat really quickly is bad.
Cooking things at high heat really quickly creates acrylamide in food. If you eat a lot of acrylamide, it increases your risk of cancer. Do smaller amounts? I decided to look this one up for you as a favor.
A meta analysis says no, eating the amount of acrylamide in food doesn't increase the risk of cancer [wiley.com].
So the answer is no, burned things are not really bad, and probably not even a little bad. One hypothesis here is that acrylamide doesn't cause problems until you ingest so much of it that it overloads your normal waste disposal methods. That is a hypothesis still, though.
What about soda water? (Score:3)
Seller beware (Score:5, Insightful)
It's got more to do with covering up the taste (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd like to test this, we have a competition. You drink 8 sugar sodas every day, and I will drink 8 diet sodas. After a month, we can compare who is feeling better. You will have drunk 1200 calories of sugar every day. I may not be feeling great, but you will be feeling awful.
There isn't a strong known link between artificial sweeteners and poor health, but there is a strong, clear, scientific link between too much sugar and poor health.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. I never felt like shit. You will have consumed extra calories though, and be slightly fatter. Also people who choose diet are probably fatter to begin with.
The study would have to correct for weight and activity.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been many studies showing that artificial sweeteners don't fool your body, your body knows it isn't sugar and doesn't like the tease and starts to crave calories. Chances are, drinking diet soda, your cravings will force you to eat a bunch of other nasty crap, and it's not hard to eat 1200 calories if you're not careful.
Diet soda you still end up consuming the calories, and a bunch of nasty chemicals at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
I need to know the biochemistry of this "fool your body with artificial sweetners" concept.
Maybe in the short run, if you have been drinking sugary soda and switch to sugar-free soda, there's some brief, Pavlovian effect where the body responds to a sugar free soda like a sugar soda. But eventually the lack of actual sugar and the ability to feed the metabolic biochemistry with actual sugar will lead to a decreasing response from the body because there's no actual sugar being consumed.
The artificial sweete
Re: (Score:2)
Those data points are far apart (Score:3)
On a graph of drinks per day, the data point of 1/month and 2 per day are pretty far apart. But I can't deny they can be connected with a straight line....
Sugar water (Score:2)
Humans weren't meant to drink sugar water. Plain and simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans also weren't meant to eat cooked food, what's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Humans also weren't meant to eat cooked food, what's your point?
Actually, our ancestors have been cooking food for up to a 1 million years. Cooking food predates Homo Sapiens and our physiology has changes as a result. We have smaller teeth now, designed to be able to work with cooked food, and our intestines are shorter because we get nutrients from cooked food easier than our distant ancestors did with uncooked food. We've had plenty of time to adjust genetically to take advantage of cooked food.
With that said, there may still be some health benefits to eating many
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm wrong and it wasn't meant to be that deep, but maybe the point was that we weren't MEANT to do anything. We didn't have to do anything to adapt to cooked food, because no such adaptation is necessary. The same organisms break down the proteins, and they were already in us. The food just gets easier to break down when you cook it, resulting in more complete digestion. Other primates can eat cooked meat, and they haven't evolved for it at all.
When you couple that with the apparent fact that we evolv
Is it the drinks? (Score:3)
Or is it that people who don't give a fuck about what they drink also don't give a fuck about what they eat?
Re: (Score:2)
No ... A quick visit to Walmart will demonstrate Only fat people buy diet soda mostly because it tastes disgusting, and you would not drink it unless your doctor said your life depended on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk for yourself, I like the taste of Coke Zero more than that of sugary Coke.
Coke Light is an affront to the taste buds, though, I give you that.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk for yourself, I like the taste of Coke Zero more than that of sugary Coke.
Coke Light is an affront to the taste buds, though, I give you that.
To each their own but any artificial sweeteners just taste off to me and give me a slight headache. With some of the new Mountain Dew varieties I really liked the flavor but when I couldn't hardly drink any of it I looked at the ingredients and saw it had artificial sweeteners along with the HFCS. Not calling it disgusting, just something odd to it I can't deal with, maybe I'm just odd.
Re: (Score:2)
To each their own but any artificial sweeteners just taste off to me and give me a slight headache. With some of the new Mountain Dew varieties I really liked the flavor but when I couldn't hardly drink any of it I looked at the ingredients and saw it had artificial sweeteners along with the HFCS. Not calling it disgusting, just something odd to it I can't deal with, maybe I'm just odd.
When I used to drink soda more frequently I discovered that I got a lot more of both headaches and migraines. Fresca was the worst, drinking a Fresca guarenteed I would get a migraine. The headaches were what caused me to stop drinking soda entirely (ok, still on occassion when no other choice).
I find now that I don't drink soda often, a single soda won't give me a headache like they did when I drank them often. I can only assume my body is less saturated with all the bad things diet soda brings so that
Re: Is it the drinks? (Score:2)
If I can get it I prefer Mexican coke over regular coke. Basically the same taste but with cane sugar instead of HFCS
Re: (Score:2)
I switched to drinking home-fizzed water for a lot of the time anyway - Sodastream but without any flavourings.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not fat. I like and purchase diet Dr Pepper. Square that circle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or is it that people who don't give a fuck about what they drink also don't give a fuck about what they eat?
No ... A quick visit to Walmart will demonstrate Only fat people buy diet soda mostly because it tastes disgusting, and you would not drink it unless your doctor said your life depended on it.
I don't buy soda very often; I probably have 3 or 4 sodas a year, but when I do, I prefer diet, because of the flavour and it being less sweet. Now diet Coke is nasty and chemically tasting, but diet Pepsi is OK, and diet Dr. Pepper is the king of the diet drinks.
Now, once upon a time I was fat, so maybe that's where I developed the preference, but I'm not anymore, and I'll still grab a diet before a regular soda... but typically I only drink soda when I have no alternative.
Well I do mix rum (Score:2)
and cocaine or MDA and then some Cialis with Coke Zero.
yeah right... (Score:2)
We also heard drinking tea, coffee, fruitjuice all lead to early deaths..
This is yet again a really REALLY flawed study.. No real link can be set on the drinks.. As for instance fruitjuices were omitted in the study.. What was the actual cause of death.
Maybe a lot of those people were living in the middle of a big city, so smog etc would also contribute to their early deaths, maybe a lot of them had people near them smoke or smoked themselves. Maybe they used drugs, maybe they just starved, maybe, maybe may
Re: (Score:2)
We also heard drinking tea, coffee, fruitjuice all lead to early deaths..
Fruit juice... yes... and not really a surprise. Fruit juice is a higher concentration of liquid sugar than even soda. Fruit is healthy with the flesh and fiber of the fruit that helps regulate how your body takes in those sugars. Drink the juice by itself and you might as well be drinking sugary soda... in fact you'd probably be better off drinking soda because it has less sugar than fruit juice.
Coffee and tea are actually linked with extended lifespans. There have been many studies trying to prove tha
Re: (Score:2)
Fruit is healthy with the flesh and fiber of the fruit that helps regulate how your body takes in those sugars
Also, you need a pound of apples to make one glass of juice. It's much easier to drink 2 glasses of apple juice than it is to eat 2 pounds of apples.
Quit listening to "nutritionists". (Score:2)
It's agenda driven. Ignore them. You *might* live a month less but you'll definitely be happier for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ignore them. You *might* live a month less but you'll definitely be happier for it.
My son makes similar claims, that eating unhealthy might make him live a shorter life, but he'll be happier because he is eating whatever he likes.
Personally... I'm convinced you're both wrong. In truth, what most people who eat healthy and exercise discover is that they feel happier as they get healthier, and the "yucky health food" is actually more appealing than the junk food once your body adjusts. (there is a nerve connecting the gut and brain, the gut has even been called "the second brain" casually
Normal (Score:2)
As long as they do not differentiate between people who drink no-sugar beverages because the ARE fat and those who don't want to GET fat, it's useless.
Nonsense research (Score:2)
As soon as it says "sweeteners" rather than any specific sweetener, then its lost absolutely any credibility.
Stevia is same as Aspartame is same as Sucralose is the same as Saccharin?
If you are typically talking of soft drinks its mostly Aspartame which is the one sweetener used in most soft drinks. So why not just name that?
Re: (Score:2)
The sodas I drink don't use either of those things. They are sweetened with erithritol and stevia, the only two sweeteners which don't seem to cause a blood sugar response. If you use them together, you can't tell the difference from sugar in most contexts, even though stevia normally tastes weird. Sadly, you actually can still taste the difference in soda, but not so much once you add the alcohol. What, you drink soda without booze in it? What are you people, five?
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as it says "sweeteners" rather than any specific sweetener, then its lost absolutely any credibility.
Stevia is same as Aspartame is same as Sucralose is the same as Saccharin?
If you are typically talking of soft drinks its mostly Aspartame which is the one sweetener used in most soft drinks. So why not just name that?
Many products with artificial sweeteners use a cocktail of chemicals now. If they asked people to record each one they consumed in drinks, they would probably have lower or less accurate participation.
You're right, not saying which sweetener is used is LESS PRECISE. We don't know if Stevia is as bad as Aspartame, for example, or which product is "to blame"; however by being less precise they've increased accuracy because people are more likely to record what they consumed. They've identified the area the
Living Forever (Score:2)
Is "Early Death" a bad thing? If you say yes, state why. It's not as easy as you think. Philosophers like Alan Watts talked about this at length. This is a cognitive bias that has to do with a fear of death and we temporarily delude ourselves into thinking we are going to live forever thereby alleviating the fear of the inevitability of death. All of the people who decry this and that for shortening lifespans in a virtual signalling fashion apparently think that "long life" has value. It doesn't. It'
Re: (Score:2)
Is "Early Death" a bad thing? If you say yes, state why. It's not as easy as you think
My wife and kids still need me.
Re: (Score:2)
Is "Early Death" a bad thing? If you say yes, state why.
Because I'm not done yet.
Re: (Score:2)
The same things that lead to longer life also tend to lead to healthier lives too. Obesity, for example, will not only lower your life expectancy, but also the quality of the life that you have left. Poor health leads to lower happiness.
To have a good life with the maximum happiness, be healthy. If you lead a healthy life, there is a good chance that when you're 70 you will be albe to enjoy your retirement with all your teeth and energy.
My dad is in his 80's, always lived healthy, and he's still active a
Well... (Score:2)
Considering Social Security will be bankrupt and so will medicare soon, who wants to live too long?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering Social Security will be bankrupt and so will medicare soon, who wants to live too long?
Political suicide to not fully fund either. They will take money from other government agencies to keep fundung Social Security and medicare. Your parks, roads and schools will all crumble to feed Social Security and medicare before Social Security folds.
That said, take matters into your own hand. Fund your pension or 401k too- don't count on Social Security alone. By the time I retire, my pension will give me almost the same amount of money a month as my current wage- and then I get Social Security and
Health conscious (Score:2)
The problem with these kinds of studies (where they are basing this factoid on whether or not a specific checkbox was marked or not) is that one piece of information is a likely indicator of being more health-conscious in general. The average person likes carbonated soft drinks, so if you have someone who does not drink them, there is a very good chance that is being done specifically to improve their health. And if they are omitting soft drinks for health reasons, it is very likely they are doing other t
Re: (Score:2)
There are people who have smoked all their lives and are in their 80s and still smoke, there are those who get sick and/or die young from smoking.
It's all a big crapshoot.
Live your life and enjoy it how you want (as long as you aren't hurting others [except those that want to be hurt])
While possibly accurate, this is still a ton of BS (Score:2)
If I'm reading this correctly, they asked people to self-report their diet *once* and then assumed that A) they were self-reporting correctly, and B) that they kept the same diet for the next sixteen years. What were you eating regularly 16 years ago? Do you still eat the same way? Do you know *anyone* who does?
That is terrible, terrible "science". It might still have found accurate answers, in the way a blind squirrel still nuts twice a day,
I do wish that something like this could be done in a better w
Doesn't compare dye free soda (Score:2)
Sugar-free didn't save these people. Has anyone considered that maybe Crystal Pepsi was right all along?
Soft Drinks, Including Sugar-Free... (Score:2)
So we should only drink alcoholic beverages now then?
Would you like fries with that ??? (Score:2)
I could be wrong but if you are REGULARLY consuming soft drinks, it might be an indicator you are regularly consuming other things... fast food? Pizza? and the other foods traditionally served with carbonated beverages.
so... as the article points out "while experts say the study cannot prove soft drinks are a driver of an increased risk of death" ... is probably the correct attitude, the banning of soft drinks is just one more attempt to control people on a wholly unexceptionable level. Seriously, if we wo
Personal Testimonial (Score:3)
I have been a regular soda drinker for years.
In January, based on my bloodwork, I knew my doctor was going to tell me I had Type 2 diabetes.
I immediately stopped drinking soda. Haven't had one since then.
My A1C number has changed from Type 2 diabetes range to Normal since then. I have lost 45 pounds. My doctor says if I continue on my current trajectory, in one year, she will un-diagnose me as a Type 2 diabetic.
I have more energy, I am more active. Don't think I will ever drink another soda.
Re:OMG - did you see the second paragraph? (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's not manipulation. It's normal to control for factors which may skew your results. e.g. You find that smokers are more likely to drink soft drinks. That makes it unclear if the higher death rate is from smoking, or from drinking soft drinks.
So rather than just comparing soft drink drinkers to non-drinkers, you compare smokers who drink soft drinks vs smokers who don't, and non-smokers who drink soft drinks vs non-smokers who don't. That subtracts the effect of smoking on death rate from your stats.
Re: (Score:2)
It's normal to control for factors which may skew your results.
Correct, and that's a good thing.
However, people like to overstate the strength of these methods. In order to control for factors, you need to know them, and measure them correctly. Also, the factors need to be linear, time-invariant, and independent. In realistic cases, none of the requirements actually hold, and it is very easy for researchers to knowingly, or unknowingly, make mistakes that skew the results.
We're talking about groups of people who drink 60 glasses of soft drinks per month, versus groups
Re: (Score:2)
The first question for these kind of studies should always be "what did they control for".
From what I can see, they did not control for general economic factors or marital status. Both are known to influence longevity and both are at least colloquially associated with soft drink intake.
Multivariable models were adjusted for alcohol consumption; smoking status, intensity, and duration; body mass index (BMI) (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared); physical activity; educational status; menopausal status; ever use of menopausal hormone therapy; and dietary intakes of total energy, red and processed meats, coffee, fruit and vegetable juices, and fruits and vegetables. Further adjustment for dietary fiber intake resulted in virtually unchanged risk estimates, so this variable was not included in the final multivariable models.
So, considering the limitations and the small effect, I would not draw any firm conclusions from this study.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The team say that once factors such as body mass index, diet, physical activity, smoking and education were taken into account,...
Let me translate - "after we manipulate the data"...
I am not sure what you mean. You need to account for other changing factors. You always want to look at the parameter you are interested in by removing the impact of other factors from the analysis. This is perfectly standard statistical analysis and if one does not do it, you can not derive meaningful conclusions. Now, I haven't read the study, so maybe they screwed up.
Do you have actual proof they screwed up the statistical analysis or cooked the book?
Re: (Score:2)
You really don't understand science and statistics if your take away was "they manipulated the data".
Re: (Score:2)
Adjusting for confounding factors is manipulating the data. Perhaps you missed the memo?
Re: (Score:2)
Got that? If you drink more than 60 glasses of soda/month there was a 11.5% chance you died during the course of the study, compared with a 9.3% chance if you 1/60th as many sodas a month. (I wonder what the margin of error is on this study, any chance it could account for that 2.2% difference?)
The difference between 9.3% chance and 11.5% chance is actually a 24% (11.5/9.3=1.236) difference. I don't know if that's significant, nor do I have an opinion about whether this is causation or correlation. But 24% seems way more significant than 2.2%.
Re: (Score:2)
What if we look at chance of survival rather than chance of dying ? One group had 90.7% chance to survive, and the other group had 88.5%.
Now the difference is 2.5% better outcome for the first group.
It's not obvious that chance of survival is a much worse metric than chance of dying, but there's almost of factor of 10 difference in the numbers.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Back in Soviet times, you could rest assured that whatever "experts" found out to be good for your health was whatever we had a huge surplus of, while anything in short supply was supposedly deadly poison.
Re: (Score:2)
I also heard green jelly beans cause acne! Here's proof: https://xkcd.com/882/ [xkcd.com]
``participants signed up they were asked a number of questions about aspects of their lifestyle such as exercise, smoking and weight as well as diet and nutrition''...
In other words they were guaranteed to find *something*. If it wasn't soda drinks, it would've been something else... but soda seems sensational enough to publish about, so that's what it is...