Too much cola zaps muscle power
news.bbc.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk
You can moderate your behavior to reasonably mitigate the possible risks of certain substances as much as you feel is prudent give the relative certainty and severity of the risks;
Or you can develop an ill-informed, hyperbolic, almost knee-jerk reaction to the risks and cast aspersions toward the people who shrug and either suggest all things in moderation, or suggest the risks aren't that high. It is not obvious to me that these people are either irresponsible or brain-damaged. It is just as possible they performed a rational risk assessment and arrived at a different conclusion. It's something to be discussed, not to be worked up into a religious fervor over.
For example, from the comments herein, diet colas do not promote tooth decay, nor do they promote diabetes. In fact, they are considered safe for diabetic people to drink. They contain no sucrose, nor any HFCS. They contain aspartame, an alternative sweetener with entirely different properties. They contain carbonated water, but as I cited elsewhere, carbonated water is not that conducive to tooth decay.
The study isn't even conclusive yet, and the article hedges this by saying it can cause muscle weakness, not that it will. The article mentions two people, and declare that the results can be generalized, because the investigators believe they can. They present this along with some scary statistics to assure us that, if the results can be generalized, we're all in peril.
2-3 liters sounds like a lot, but it is only because we've assumed a priori the certain risk of ingesting these substances, and declare the only proper amount for assuring ones health is 0 liters per day, with no variance. If the average were half that, aspersions would likely still be cast.
Can we please be more reasonable about this?
Wow. I was worried that 40oz might be rotting my body, but 2-3 liters is a lot of soda. Overuse of most products will have poor health effects.
That is a staggering volume, and apparently there is a very sizable population of individuals who are heavy users.
You might want to quit carbonated and sugared drinks before you get that incentive...
For carbonated beverages in general, the concern appears to be more about the acids in the substance than in the carbonation, at least as my limited research suggests. Some of these same acids occur in a variety of other foods as well (citric acid in citrus fruits, for instance.) Others, like phosphoric acid, which has been correlated to decreased bone density in some studies, are only in certain soft drinks. Even then, the risk is not certain.
Carbonation, on it's own produces very little relative tooth decay (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonated_water#Health_effects).
There may be other concerns worth voicing, but these seem marginal.
As sweeteners (both artificial and real) go, I doubt there's going to be a clear view of their pros and cons in the near future -- there's way, way too much money involved. (I like honey and vanilla sugar, but try to not use too much.)
(That is why you shouldn't brush your teeth for half an hour after eating e.g. an orange.)
Also, afaik the diet cokes seem to stimulate appetite (the taste promise sugar, but the body doesn't get any).
Seeing the photos of the huge, oozing wounds that never heal and hearing the stories about renal failure, blindness, and amputations have certainly made me more aware of my diet. Eating one large, high GI meal per day (as I used to do) is basically a ticket to diabetes (and probably Alzheimers, which many researchers are arguing is essentially just another type of diabetes.) I now eat 5-6 smaller meals per day, and I try to balance them and monitor the GI load. There are new studies that indicate that you can do permanent damage to your brain by eating large, sugary meals even BEFORE you have any indication that you are doing so. Some people have damaged their brains even before they register as pre-diabetic on blood tests.
I drink a brand called Diet Rite which is made with Splenda and has no caffeine or sodium. And, actually, I honestly like the taste of it better than Coke or Pepsi.
I think something like that is fine and if the other soda companies switched to healthier ingredients they would be fine too.
Why not just drink water, instead of Brawndo?
Hmm . . . maybe I just proved your point. All I've had to drink today is coffee and Red Bull.
Full text of article is here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121402091/abstrac...
i have no access to the details (would have to pay, not a student with a univ license or anything...), so if someone does have access - it'd be nice to know at which amount in this study one transitions from 'moderate' to 'heavy.' 5 is apparently heavy, but where is 2 cans?
Edit: not quite, that's just the IJCP summary. The actual study is behind a paywall here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/12238434...
there's nothing new here - no new research - it's just an editorial. don't drink too much soda - duh. i was hoping they figured could narrow down what moderate means.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=616639
My same disappointment with the "journalistic" coverage applies now:
They don't seem to differentiate colas from other sodas. A surprise to me, since I seem to recall hearing the high phosphorous content of colas can compete with some other mineral absorption (calcium, was it?) ...maybe compete with potassium?
Personally, I've felt better about my physical stamina when I surrender to my crave for a "fizzling" drink by going to some diet lemon-lime (no caffeine or sugar) rather than a "cola" (whether caffeinated or sugared). YMMV