EXPENSIVE NEW STUDY SHOWS SUGAR IS BAD FOR YOU. OMG

[The_Real_Crunk]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/10020...h_drink_cancer

Too much sugar is bad for you. Dont eat too much guys.

[Wavelength]

Re: EXPENSIVE NEW STUDY SHOWS SUGAR IS BAD FOR YOU. OMG

It's really important to know exactly what it does to you, what types of sugars are harmful, whether it's only significant if you have pre-existing conditions, and whether it's more unhealthy than fats or artificial sweeteners. I'm happy to see my tax dollars go to this kind of stuff.

But then, either this study was conducted by the most moronic group of "scientists" in the world, or this article was written by the most moronic "journalist" in the world. I'm leaning toward the former, because the latter at least gave full disclosure (such as that the study wasn't done with sports drinks).

No soda in the world has a typical "serving" of 20 ounces; the serving size is usually listed as 8 ounces (occasionally 12) which puts it at around the same amount of sugar as most orange juice, and LESS sugar than the really natural (and amazingly tasty) orange juices out there. Also, orange juice's main sugar is fructose while soda tends to be a mix of sucrose and fructose (and in America goes through a lot of processing to become HFCS).

Meanwhile, carbonation (as far as I've heard) has been linked to esophageal cancer, so I don't see why it would be ruled out in a study that only measured soda vs. orange juice. It doesn't make any sense.

I dunno, I feel it's best to just avoid eating or drinking extreme amounts of anything, and try to load up on antioxidants.

[jacquel]

Re: EXPENSIVE NEW STUDY SHOWS SUGAR IS BAD FOR YOU. OMG

Its difficult to ever ascertain good science from journalism review because.. well. Its hard to ever ascertain good science unless you have the actual article to read.

That said, if they discovered a main effect for soda consumption that was not erased when they removed confounds (all those other dietary and health factors) I don't see how this is a poor finding. If anything it suggests something in soda is a more powerful promoter of cancer than those other items.

A lot of research across various fields yields findings that you could react to with "well, duh,"; the point is empirically verifying beliefs that are in reality merely assumptions. Its when something that is widely belived to be true and taken for granted does NOT behave as expected by the norm that you have something 'exciting,'; its always a trial and error process to weed those discoveries out.

I don't think schools do a good enough job of teaching the philosophy and practice of science. Chemistry and physics are fine but if people don't understand the logic behind empiricism then its kind of moot.

So I'm not going to be passive about it; I find the sarcasm behind this thread dumb.

[Riotsword]

Re: EXPENSIVE NEW STUDY SHOWS SUGAR IS BAD FOR YOU. OMG

I used to drink soda almost exclusively; that changed about 3-4 months ago, when I simply got tired of drinking it. I've managed now to only drink soda when I'm eating lunch or dinner and drink water at any other time. (Right now water doesn't do anything for me when I'm eating. I need something with a taste.) I've actually lost about 25 pounds since then. It can't just be a coincidence.

Now I'm going to start working on drinking juice instead of soda during meals and see how that works out, then eventually, go from juice to water.

[marcus]

Re: EXPENSIVE NEW STUDY SHOWS SUGAR IS BAD FOR YOU. OMG

Its difficult to ever ascertain good science from journalism review because.. well. Its hard to ever ascertain good science unless you have the actual article to read.

That said, if they discovered a main effect for soda consumption that was not erased when they removed confounds (all those other dietary and health factors) I don't see how this is a poor finding. If anything it suggests something in soda is a more powerful promoter of cancer than those other items.

A lot of research across various fields yields findings that you could react to with "well, duh,"; the point is empirically verifying beliefs that are in reality merely assumptions. Its when something that is widely belived to be true and taken for granted does NOT behave as expected by the norm that you have something 'exciting,'; its always a trial and error process to weed those discoveries out.

I don't think schools do a good enough job of teaching the philosophy and practice of science. Chemistry and physics are fine but if people don't understand the logic behind empiricism then its kind of moot.

So I'm not going to be passive about it; I find the sarcasm behind this thread dumb.

The point is moot when no empirical data is given in the first place. "Scientists link drinking beer to a higher risk of cancer." Okay, how high? If the average beer drinking American in reality has a .00005% chance higher to develop cancer than a non-beer drinking American, I'll take my chances.

Aside from addiction, this is one of the reason people still do things that are terrible for them like drinking and smoking. Everyone in the world knows smoking increases your risk for mouth/lung cancer but it's not a constant factor. So long as there's a doubt in people's minds they just don't give a crap about research. Now if scientists said "Smoking one pack a day gives you a 99% chance of developing lung cancer by age 55" then more people would take the research seriously.

I already know processed sugar and colorings in soda are bad for me. This research does nothing but confirm my fears. Until I get some hard data I just don't care.

[Kefka Jr.]

Re: EXPENSIVE NEW STUDY SHOWS SUGAR IS BAD FOR YOU. OMG

What this report needs is a sweet ass bar graph.

[Wavelength]

Re: EXPENSIVE NEW STUDY SHOWS SUGAR IS BAD FOR YOU. OMG

That said, if they discovered a main effect for soda consumption that was not erased when they removed confounds (all those other dietary and health factors) I don't see how this is a poor finding. If anything it suggests something in soda is a more powerful promoter of cancer than those other items.

What made the article and/or research ridiculous to me was the admission that orange juice (extremely high in sugar) didn't have the same effect that soda did, alongside the claim that sugar was the main promoter.

Obviously there are plausible explanations like orange juice's antioxidants nullifying the effect, but that seems like a long shot and it wasn't even mentioned in the article.

Soda bad for you? Almost definitely true. Sugar as the culprit? Probably not.

[Jehuty]

Re: EXPENSIVE NEW STUDY SHOWS SUGAR IS BAD FOR YOU. OMG

Sugars in plants are often modified or simply chemically different then traditional refined sugar in soda.

I don't think one thing in particular makes Soda bad for you, and its more of a collective effort.

[Wavelength]

Re: EXPENSIVE NEW STUDY SHOWS SUGAR IS BAD FOR YOU. OMG

Sugars in plants are often modified or simply chemically different then traditional refined sugar in soda.

Good point. High-Fructose Corn Syrup for exampl goes through a lot of processing and isn't even a technically natural ingredient. However, that's why it's ridiculous of either the study or the article to blame it on "sugar" (which they did. they didn't make any distinction between different types of it).

[jacquel]

Re: EXPENSIVE NEW STUDY SHOWS SUGAR IS BAD FOR YOU. OMG

I already know processed sugar and colorings in soda are bad for me. This research does nothing but confirm my fears. Until I get some hard data I just don't care.

Its difficult to ever ascertain good science from journalism review because.. well. Its hard to ever ascertain good science unless you have the actual article to read.

...

[Cutter De Blanc]

Re: EXPENSIVE NEW STUDY SHOWS SUGAR IS BAD FOR YOU. OMG

Blah Blah blah, I'm gonna die eventually anyway, why hate my meals while doing so?

[marcus]

Re: EXPENSIVE NEW STUDY SHOWS SUGAR IS BAD FOR YOU. OMG

...

You'd think if the journalists cared about hard facts they'd include the data in the article or link to it. This goes for all scientific research reported in the media with no links to the research itself.

"Scientists say breathing increases your risk of cancer. In other news..."

And last time I was in Singapore, their soda was made from cane sugar. If this research has any actual merit, it has more impact because everyone should know by now that processed sugars are terrible.

[Wavelength]

Re: EXPENSIVE NEW STUDY SHOWS SUGAR IS BAD FOR YOU. OMG

"Scientists say breathing increases your risk of cancer. In other news..."

The more you breathe, the more likely you are to develop cancer!

People who stop breathing are 100% less likely to develop cancer!

I agree with you. Journalists should stop assuming that correlation implies causation.

However, in this particular case, it really looks like it might have been scientists doing a flawed study. Since when is a "serving size" of 20 ounces for soda typical, and why are they comparing it against an 8-ounce serving of orange juice?

[jacquel]

Re: EXPENSIVE NEW STUDY SHOWS SUGAR IS BAD FOR YOU. OMG

I don't think journalists care about hard facts at all really.

The study does look a tad bull****ty but what I'm saying is that you're reading a media article on it, not the publication of the study itself; it may just be my vantage point but I volunteer time in a psych research lab and we actually put ourselves through exercises on how to talk about research in the plainest, simplistic terms possible for if we ever get media contact; another lab in our department did and it turned out awfully (misquotes, misinterpretations, completely missing the aims of the study and focusing on one part of it)...

Journalists know that most of the consuming public doesn't have fast and easy access to the actual information for this stuff (all us college kids are spoiled through our school library's database; without this you, like everyone else, would have to either buy a subscription to the journal a study is published in or pay a one-time-viewing fee. No ones gonna do this, no one but scientists are going to bother to fact check, and we don't particularly matter).

[Wavelength]

Re: EXPENSIVE NEW STUDY SHOWS SUGAR IS BAD FOR YOU. OMG

Journalists know that most of the consuming public doesn't have fast and easy access to the actual information for this stuff (all us college kids are spoiled through our school library's database; without this you, like everyone else, would have to either buy a subscription to the journal a study is published in or pay a one-time-viewing fee. No ones gonna do this, no one but scientists are going to bother to fact check, and we don't particularly matter).

But isn't that an opportunity for journalists to provide actual value to their readers (thus remaining... relevant)?