Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
No Soda for You
Under pressure from proliferating regulations and threatened litigation, the major soft drink companies have agreed to stop selling regular soda in elementary, middle, and high schools. Under the deal, brokered by the William J. Clinton Foundation and announced today, only water, low-fat milk, and fruit juice will be sold in elementary and middle schools; high school students will also be able to buy diet soda and sports drinks. A spokesman for Bill Clinton calls the deal "a bold and sweeping step that industry and childhood obesity advocates have decided to take together." The president of the American Heart Association says it's "the beginning of a major effort to modify childhood obesity at the level of the school systems."
Yet it's hard to see how these changes can reasonably be expected to have a significant effect on kids' weight. To begin with, fruit juices have just as many calories as regular soda; so do low-fat (as opposed to fat-free) milk and many sports drinks. If the concern is how many calories kids are ingesting (as opposed to, say, possible vitamin C deficiency), substituting orange juice for Coke does not accomplish anything. I'm not sure why diet soda, a close substitute for regular soda with no calories, will be limited to high schools, but that choice makes no sense if the aim is reducing calorie intake.
Even if the only beverages sold in schools had zero calories, I'm skeptical that the upshot would be measurably thinner students. They would still be able to bring the beverages of their choice to school, and their off-campus calorie consumption (i.e., the vast majority of their calorie consumption) would be entirely unaffected. In short, pulling corn-syrup-sweetened soda from school vending machines, like eliminating cigarette billboards, will make people feel good, but it will not have a noticeable impact on overall consumption.
Dave W.|5.3.06 @ 12:10PM|#
In short, pulling corn-syrup-sweetened soda from school
vending machines, like eliminating cigarette billboards, will make
people feel good, but it will not have a noticeable impact on
overall consumption.
Unless it turns out that cornsyrup is somehow worse for you than
the other sugars that come in to replace it. If that is the case
then the regulation makes some sense. Like Bailey said: should be
an interesting, contentious decade.
|5.3.06 @ 12:12PM|#
Under pressure from proliferating regulations and threatened
litigation, the major soft drink companies have agreed to stop
selling regular soda in elementary, middle, and high
schools.
Don't regulators and litigators care about the rest of us?
...surely, they won't just sit there when so many adults are
running wild in the streets--drinking soft drinks at will!
...They're bad for us too, you know?
|5.3.06 @ 12:20PM|#
Yeah, watch out - soon it'll be convenience stores within half a
mile of a school can't sell anything sugary.
I agree that this is largely a PR solution, just like any other
diet where a magical combination of certain foods will make you
slim and fit and attractive and solve all your health problems. The
real solution is to just make exercise part of the culture, which
right now it's not. What that means for schools in unclear (more
recess, intramural sports?), but it's not a matter of putting
everyone there on a diet.
Dave W.|5.3.06 @ 12:30PM|#
Don't regulators and litigators care about the rest of us?
...surely, they won't just sit there when so many adults are
running wild in the streets--drinking soft drinks at will!
...They're bad for us too, you know?
They are hoping for divide and conquer, Ken. If these wacky
Clintonians can get a segment of the population to cut the HFCS,
then they might get some compelling data on the safety of HFCS
relative to other sugars, you know comparing the HFCS people to the
cane people. Once they have this data in hand, then they will come
after your soda. They will grab your soda and extract the HFCS and
replace it with cane and charge you for the privilege. And you will
be happy about it because you don't want to lose a foot, which at
that future date you will indeed be worried about.
That is the plan anyway. We'll see how reality works out. They will
look pretty bad if the HFCS-free kids end up as fat and diabetic as
the normals.
|5.3.06 @ 12:53PM|#
high school students will also be able to buy diet soda and
sports drinks
WTF????
Diet soda and sports drinks are murder on your liver and internal
organs. Many diet sodas contain carcinogens. Not to mention, diet
pop tastes like dooky. Sports drinks contain ridiculously high
amounts of high fructose (say it with me, people) corn
syrup that human livers are not meant to process large amounts
of. Moreover, most people, even active high school athletes, don't
need as many electrolytes and sugar energy that are contained in
sports drinks, and they should really be used at a minimum and not
relied on. I really think putting alchol in the vending machines
would be a healthier choice for those kids' livers over sports
drinks and diet soda.
Finally, to quote what a stupid (but wise in this instance) woman
said,
"Diet pop is for fat people."
Truer words were never spoken.
|5.3.06 @ 12:57PM|#
This won't matter much, in the long run. The rising cost of oil and energy will force Americans to lose weight. Cheap energy makes American obesity feasable. Take away the cheap energy, and the nation will be forced to lose some fat. You think Bob Q. Overwaite will still be towing 320 lbs around when he has to *walk* to Burger King to stuff his face with carbs, sugar water, and grease, the price of which has soared (due to soaring energy cost)?
|5.3.06 @ 1:00PM|#
William J. Clinton Foundation
Klintoon was a pudgy little kid; add pop-psychology as desired.
Timothy|5.3.06 @ 1:00PM|#
Many diet sodas contain carcinogens.
Is this the benzene thing or the aspartame thing? Because aspartame
doesn't cause cancer.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tpaspart.html
|5.3.06 @ 1:07PM|#
The real solution is to just make exercise part of the
culture, which right now it's not.
It's not? Don't schools have gym class any more?!
Anyway, the *real* problem, as always, is the parents. They feed
their kids garbage, probably because there isn't enough time (or
desire) to cook. Then they drive their kids around from one
programmed activity to another - when they're not sitting around
watching TV. In other words, kids are fat for the same reason that
adults are fat: we're rich.
|5.3.06 @ 1:08PM|#
- Children aren't adults; we can't assume that children, who most
of whom are learning how they're "supposed to be" are as capable of
resisting maedia pressure as are adults---otherwise, from a market
perspective, those multiple hundreds of millions spent on promoting
sugary products to children would be irrational. From a practical
political view, as in the drugs and pornography issues,
libertarians would be advised to draw as clear a distinction
between the situation for children and that for adults. (I would
advise that we have a, say, 16-20 relaxation period, during which
young people would be not held as responsible or allowed as many
rights....)
- Children are not in school voluntarily, both because their
parents force them to go to any school, and many (most?) parents
can't afford a private or home-based education for their kids.
Think of it this way: it's bad enough that the gummint herds our
kids into pens; let's don't give them objectively (see next point)
bad fodder.
- Reality is not subject to market forces, and biology only to a
limited extent so far. Maybe the results are not definite for any
given person, but if you make it easier for (large) N children to
drink sugar sodas, some noticeable portion M of them will end up
with diabetes such that M is greater than the number that would be
afflicted otherwise. It's just that way, and until we hack our
genes better, that's not going to change. If you say that diabetes
is in anyone's Pareto-optimal set, I will respond that childhood is
a period in which we won't allow that to be acted-on.
- "Immediate opportunity" is generally a very strong pressure---that's why supermarkets have impulse-buy sections at the register, and why heroin and cocaine addicts have a much better chance of staying off those drugs if they aren't in neighbourhoods where those drugs aren't sold, or around other people [ab]using.
|5.3.06 @ 1:08PM|#
"They will look pretty bad if the HFCS-free kids end up as fat
and diabetic as the NORMALS." (emphasis added)
Awesome, just awesome. Maybe corn syrup will give kids super
powers.
|5.3.06 @ 1:18PM|#
Ah, but while juice and gatorade-like sports drinks have as much
sugar and calories as cola, they lack one important element:
caffeine.
It's a plot to make our school kids more docile, I tell you!
|5.3.06 @ 1:22PM|#
"Burger King to stuff his face with carbs, sugar water, and
grease"
Mmmmmmmm carbs sugar water and grease. Man I'm hungry now.
|5.3.06 @ 1:40PM|#
Anyone know if the fruit juice selection will be exclusively
juice? My guess is that there will be plenty of fruit
drink to choose from as well, whic of course has gobs of
HFCS as well.
cosmetic solutions are so boring.
|5.3.06 @ 1:42PM|#
Correct me if Im wrong, but does anyone else remember hearing that the fact HFCS is cheaper to use in soda than cane sugar has something to do with big agro subsidies?
Dave W.|5.3.06 @ 1:44PM|#
Maybe corn syrup will give kids super powers.
Or a hobby:
Rod also has diabetes (described as 'one of his favourite hobbies'
along with 'being quiet during trips'), and is prone to
bedwetting.
FROM THE UKNOWWHERE
Under pressure from proliferating regulations and threatened
litigation, the major soft drink companies have agreed to stop
selling regular soda in elementary, middle, and high
schools.
I am all for private dispute negotiation & resolution -- its
the libertarian way -- but when threats of (frivolous) litigation
or lobbying are made the negotiation really becomes coercion in the
guise of persuasion. The Clinton Foundation should have made its
presentation less forcefully so that the sodamakers don't lose
profitable business./sarc
Kevin B. O'Reilly|5.3.06 @ 1:47PM|#
To my knowledge, no one has yet offered a compelling argument
for why a libertarian should be in favor of the government
profiting from selling junk food to kids.
The points Mr. Sullum makes are good ones. Fruit juices and sports
drinks are lousy substitutes, and it's unlikely that this symbolic
gesture will make a dent in the longer-term trends that explain
increasing obesity rates: cheap food, sedentary lifestyles and
effective medical treatments of hypertension, heart disease and
diabetes.
But why, oh why, do we want Uncle Sam making money off rotting
Johnny's teeth? Makes no sense to me. And let's face it, that's the
only reason these vending machines are there in the first
place.
Dave W.|5.3.06 @ 1:48PM|#
Correct me if Im wrong, but does anyone else remember
hearing that the fact HFCS is cheaper to use in soda than cane
sugar has something to do with big agro subsidies?
I heard it was an (anti-Cuba) tax on cane. Figuring out whether
HFCS really is more risky than cane could be a great start to
getting rid of any of these protectionist policies that may exist.
In other words, bravo Clinton Foundation if u can pull this one
off.
|5.3.06 @ 1:52PM|#
But why, oh why, do we want Uncle Sam making money off
rotting Johnny's teeth?
I think or hope, rather, that there's a natural libertarian
aversion to the government micromanaging Johnny's teeth. ...not to
mention Ken's teeth.
|5.3.06 @ 1:57PM|#
And the entrepreneurial kids will loose weight as they fill
their backpacks with the evil sodas and haul them to school and
sell them at marked up, prohibition-era prices to the fatties and
sugar junkies.
Don't worry - the market will provide.
|5.3.06 @ 1:59PM|#
How about we get rid of the ridiculously high price supports for
sugar, and ridiculously high subsidies for corn production in the
US so we can have "real" soda made with cane sugar instead of high
fructose corn syrup?
I once had Dr. Pepper made with cane syrup: Nectar.
|5.3.06 @ 1:59PM|#
[/I]And the entrepreneurial kids will loose weight as they fill
their backpacks with the evil sodas and haul them to school and
sell them at marked up, prohibition-era prices to the fatties and
sugar junkies.
Don't worry - the market will provide.[/I]
Thats probably true-that is, until Principal Stalin decides to ban
posession of soda at school under pain of a three day
suspension.
|5.3.06 @ 2:06PM|#
"Thats probably true-that is, until Principal Stalin decides to
ban posession of soda at school under pain of a three day
suspension."
Principal Stalin is just another underpaid government worker. He'll
take his cut and keep the competitors (pepsi) out.
|5.3.06 @ 2:08PM|#
Aren't there anti-trust issues here? All the players in an industry get together and agree on marketing restrictions. Mom and Pop distributor loses money because he can't sell as much soda, sues the hell out of them.
Larry A|5.3.06 @ 2:14PM|#
Under pressure from proliferating regulations and threatened
litigation, the major soft drink companies have agreed to stop
selling regular soda in elementary, middle, and high
schools.
A spokesman for Bill Clinton calls the deal "a bold and
sweeping step that industry and childhood obesity advocates have
decided to take together."
Yeah.
Current spin for "We put a gun to their head and they volunteered
to do what we wanted."
|5.3.06 @ 2:14PM|#
And the entrepreneurial kids will loose weight as they fill
their backpacks with the evil sodas and haul them to school and
sell them at marked up, prohibition-era prices to the fatties and
sugar junkies.
I, and a friend or two, made a bundle in boarding school doing
exactly that.
Dave W.|5.3.06 @ 2:16PM|#
Aren't there anti-trust issues here? All the players in an
industry get together and agree on marketing restrictions. Mom and
Pop distributor loses money because he can't sell as much soda,
sues the hell out of them.
This brings to mind an antitrust connundrum I was pondering
yesterday on my commute home:
- let's say all the large market share florists get together and
conspire in the old fashioned way to drive the small florists out
of business. That is clearly an antitrust violation.
- now let's say the same large florists get together and make
political contributions to get their legislators to pass a law
driving the small florists out of business. I think the large
florists are shielded by Noerr-Pennington or something like that.
But shouldn't there be a limit on this kind of antitrust immunity?
Is there?
If we somehow magically found out that Coke & McD's lobbied for
HFCS protectionism, is that a problem?
|5.3.06 @ 2:19PM|#
Maybe corn syrup will give kids super powers.
Or a hobby:
Rod also has diabetes (described as 'one of his favourite
hobbies' along with 'being quiet during trips'), and is prone to
bedwetting.
Lol, Dave W.! That was actually pretty good.
My highschool banned bookbags (I believe it was after my freshman
year). I just ignored the ban and civilly disobeyed. All of my
consecutive classes were as far away from each other as was
possible, and I had a ton of books to carry...man, I was a big
nerd. But in my defense, at least I took drugs.
Dave W.|5.3.06 @ 2:24PM|#
Current spin for "We put a gun to their head and they
volunteered to do what we wanted."
we don't know it was a gun. Could have been electrodes to the
gonads. Or ripped out fingernails. Or a menacing guillotine in the
corner of the room. Maybe he made like he was going to spooge on
their dresses.
Or maybe, just maybe, it was words that did the trick here.
Words!
|5.3.06 @ 2:33PM|#
School is no place for the vending and dispensing of junk
food.
Jersey McJones has spoken. Why continue with this thread?
|5.3.06 @ 2:45PM|#
don't ask me how this is possible, but i am convinced that diet
soda causes weight GAIN. When I met my wife, she was addicted to
diet coke. I convinced her to switch to regular coke. She
immediately lost 10 pounds, even though she also gave up
cigarettes.
Have you ever seen a skinny person who drinks a lot of diet soda?
It's always some 390 pound monster...
|5.3.06 @ 3:06PM|#
Many diet sodas contain carcinogens.
Is this the benzene thing or the aspartame thing? Because aspartame
doesn't cause cancer.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tpaspart.html
Well, if benzene is being referred to, then it should be pointed
out that 1) benzene is present in virtually all foods, not just
sodas, 2) that the dose of benzene you get from drinking a soda
"high" in benzene is a tiny fraction of what you get from breathing
each day*, and 3) essentially all foods and drinks contain
carcinogens, though few of them appear to have them in
concentrations that pose a significant health risk.
According to a spokeperson for the FSA, you'd have to drink 20
liters of soda with 10ppb benzene just to get the benzene you get
from breathing city air in one day.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4864226.stm
|5.3.06 @ 3:20PM|#
School is no place for the vending and dispensing of junk
food.
I see no problem in dispensing junk food to go along with all the
junk science, junk economics, junk history, and junk literature
dispensed in schools.
|5.3.06 @ 3:27PM|#
Thank you, Patrick, you soda corporation shill.
Just kidding.
But that still doesn't change the fact that soda is not only empty,
nutritionless calories for your body but actually hurtful to your
body (dehydrates, strips calcium from bones, and so on).
That said, I'm not advocating coercion of corporations. I wouldn't
be surprised if guvmint salisbury steak is as poor a food choice as
soda.
|5.3.06 @ 3:28PM|#
Check out the nutritional information on the back of a bottle of
apple juice sometime. Empty calories.
I will say though, contra Mr. Sullum, that this move will have some
sort of impact on the consumption of regular soda at school. Kids
don't have refridgerators at school, and nobody wants to sit down
to lunch with a warm can of soda trucked in from home 4 hours
ago.
As far as creating a culture where physical activity is boosted,
how about creating a shame culture at school? Grant the skinny kids
access to junk food, thus creating an incentive to get skinny,
while adding additional layers of Lord of the Flies-style bullying
of the flabbier kids (ie more incentive... or, I guess, more fodder
for school shootings).
|5.3.06 @ 3:33PM|#
As far as creating a culture where physical activity is
boosted, how about creating a shame culture at school? Grant the
skinny kids access to junk food, thus creating an incentive to get
skinny, while adding additional layers of Lord of the Flies-style
bullying of the flabbier kids (ie more incentive... or, I guess,
more fodder for school shootings).
I must say that's a pretty shitty idea. I wouldn't entirely blame
fat kids on being lazy. There are people who are genetically prone
to have "big bones", you know. A measure like this would mainly
tyrannize stocky kids of Eastern European and Russian descent. And
Eskimos. And other fat peoples.
|5.3.06 @ 3:35PM|#
Check out the nutritional information on the back of a
bottle of apple juice sometime. Empty calories.
B.P.,
I do agree with you there. In fact, I'm probably one of the only
people who believes that eating a lot of fruit isn't really good
for you. Too much sugar.
Timothy|5.3.06 @ 3:44PM|#
But that still doesn't change the fact that soda is not only
empty, nutritionless calories for your body but actually hurtful to
your body (dehydrates, strips calcium from bones, and so
on).
No argument there, the stuff is damn terrible for you. Doesn't stop
me, though, it'll never stop me. I'm looking at the can of Coke
Classic on my desk right now, 140 calories in a 12oz can, 39g of
sugars, 50mg of salt. Sugar water, basically. But, yeah, so is
fruit juice. What's in fruit, even 100% fruit juice? Mostly
fructose, except in the case of citrus which is generally about
50/50 fructose/glucose. Moderation, little exercise, and not
worrying so damn much about if 30 extra pounds cuts precious weeks
off of your late 70s.
|5.3.06 @ 3:49PM|#
Diet soda and sports drinks are murder on your
liver
Smacky, where did you hear this? I need to change my dietary habits
if that's the case...
Have you ever seen a skinny person who drinks a lot of diet
soda?
Jose, I'm 5'8" - 160 lbs., although I agree that I'm probably in
the minority.
MC 900 ft. Jesus had a song with the lyrics:
Whaddaya think this is, some kind of joke?
I want ten Big Macs and a small diet Coke.
...how about creating a shame culture at school?
...um, did you ever go to school?
|5.3.06 @ 3:52PM|#
Thats probably true-that is, until Principal Stalin decides
to ban posession of soda at school under pain of a three day
suspension.
When sodas are outlawed, only outlaws will have sodas.
|5.3.06 @ 3:53PM|#
The company I work for used to offer free soda and juice. At one
point our paternalistic CEO became concerned about the quantities
of soda one of the developers was putting down, so the soda was
moved to $0.50 a can while the juice remained free. I actually
ended up consuming more calories a day than I would have if the
soda was free since I would have consumed diet soda otherwise.
Insofar as fat kids care about their weight (probably more so in
middle and high school than elementary school), a similar effect
may be observed.
What bugs me the most about this type of pressure is that it
focuses on a particular mechanism (drinking soda) by which the
underlying problem (inbalance between calories consumed and
expended) manifests itself and often disproportionately demonizes
that mechanism. When the regulation of the mechanism fails to
reduce the underlying problem because other mechanisms remain
available (eating and drinking non-soda beverages, not exercising),
activists call for progressively more draconian regulation of the
particular mechanism (restrictions on selling soda near schools,
carding people to buy soda, regulating the content of sodas, etc)
as each round of the regulations fail.
For this particular issue, the best solution would be that the
school sells parents vouchers for general classes of foods which
the kids can redeem at school, so that the parents can regulate the
diet of their kids while at school to avoid them loading up on junk
food. It's easier and more flexible than actually packing the kid
food, provides a lot more control than giving the kid cash, and
allows parents to keep track of long term consumption, so if their
kid is overweight, they can see where they are packing on the
calories.
Jose -
Every yuppie in Madison, WI, skinny or not, drinks Diet Coke.
Switching to diet soda helped me when I was dieting, although I did
and still do tear through the stuff. I expect fat people who are
trying to diet go through it even faster because they are jonesing
for a real soda but know they can't have one, so they increase the
intake of the imperfect subsitute.
|5.3.06 @ 3:56PM|#
What gets me about this debate is the assumption that kids have
nothing else to do all day but sit around and drink soda.
I graduated from high school 10 years ago, so maybe I'm wildly out
of touch by now, but we weren't allowed to eat or drink in class.
And we only had about 8 minutes between classes, so chugging in the
hallways was out. And probably against the rules anyway. So the
only possible time during the school day that we could drink soda
was during lunch.
Is it so different now, that kids have constant leisure to sit
around with a Coke during school? Or do people really think that
one stinking soda consumed at lunchtime is Killing Our
Children?
|5.3.06 @ 3:59PM|#
I drink a lot of diet (and regular) soda, and Im 5'9 162. I also
eat at McDonalds for lunch just about every weekday.
Why am I not overweight? Because I run three miles everyday. Is it
really that difficult to figure out how to be able to consume high
calorie foods, yet still not be a fat ass?
I know in schools in Virginia, they cut recess and physical
education classes in elementary and middle schools. This was so
that the teachers would have more class time to teach the Standards
of Learning Exams. And they wonder why kids are fat (and
hyperactive?)
|5.3.06 @ 3:59PM|#
high school students will also be able to buy diet soda and
sports drinks.
Are the sports drinks of the diet variety?
If not, perhaps you should have written that high school
students will also be able to buy sports drinks and diet
soda.
|5.3.06 @ 4:01PM|#
Hey folks, I'm kidding. It's not a policy prescription. Although it's no less workable or more outlandish than imagining that the country, in the aggregate, will hop, skip, and jog its way out of obesity.
|5.3.06 @ 4:04PM|#
Smacky, where did you hear this? I need to change my dietary
habits if that's the case...
SmokingPenguin,
I've read it in several health bulletins and heard it from several
reputable nutritionists...I've known corn syrup is bad for years,
and I didn't need any medical journal to tell me that. Just think:
How does it make you feel? My liver hurts just trying to process
it, usually.
It seems like common sense to me that a syrupy substance would be
much harder for your liver and digestive organs to process than
something natural like water, milk, juice (not in excess), or even
alcohol. It takes more energy from your body to process carbs in
general. So the way I see it (and I'm pretty sure I'm paraphrasing
what I've heard about fructose and corn syrup in general):
More energy = harder work = more wear and tear.
Capiche?
For this particular issue, the best solution would be that the
school sells parents vouchers for general classes of foods which
the kids can redeem at school, so that the parents can regulate the
diet of their kids while at school to avoid them loading up on junk
food. It's easier and more flexible than actually packing the kid
food, provides a lot more control than giving the kid cash, and
allows parents to keep track of long term consumption, so if their
kid is overweight, they can see where they are packing on the
calories.
If the major concern of parents is their children's ever-expanding
waistlines, one solution would be to give them money. I spent my
lunch money on cigarettes and it certainly helped me lose the
weight when it really counted (at the still-naive tender age when I
actually cared what boys thought of my developing figure).
|5.3.06 @ 4:06PM|#
Or do people really think that one stinking soda consumed at
lunchtime is Killing Our Children?
I think the people who push for this stuff, really do believe that.
They have no sense of people being able to consume in moderation.
The philosophy seems to be that if too much of something is bad for
you, then a little bit is also bad, and shouldn't be consumed. It's
similar to people who think that because one multivitamin per day
can be good for you, ten must be even better.
These type of people seem to need every action to have a purpose,
and the purpose had better not be pleasure.
|5.3.06 @ 4:28PM|#
"It seems like common sense to me that a syrupy substance would
be much harder for your liver and digestive organs to process than
something natural like water, milk, juice (not in excess), or even
alcohol. It takes more energy from your body to process carbs in
general. So the way I see it (and I'm pretty sure I'm paraphrasing
what I've heard about fructose and corn syrup in general)" posted
by smacky
not necessarily, smacky. HFCS is not chemically different from the
sugar found in other fruits (Fructose) which is made of one
molecule of glucose and one molecule of sucrose, which needs to be
broken down by amylase (enzyme in saliva) and sucrase (an enzyme
produced in the lower digestive tract) to be converted into glucose
(the most simple sugar and the one used by our bodies for energy).
What the liver does in relation to all of this is convert glucose
to glycogen, which a type of carbohydrate stored exclusively in
muscle tissues and in the liver.
HFCS is not any more difficult for the body to break down than
other sugars (lactose and maltose are actually more complex and
harder to break down). Proteins and fats are more taxing,
technically speaking, on the digestive system. Fats involve the
liver (production of bile for the gall bladder to breakdown fat
molecules) more than sugars do.
Where HFCS, indeed, almost all forms of simple easily digestible
carbohydrates, become a problem, esp. w/r/t weight gain, is when
the pancreas releases insulin to control the over-abundance of
sugar in the system. Insulin converts leftover sugar into fat
molecules to be stored for times of famine (which we obviously
never experience here).
Timothy|5.3.06 @ 4:29PM|#
Is fructose harder to digest than glucose? I mean, isn't cane
sugar just sucrose, which is really just glucose and fructose stuck
together?
Plus, in the case of sugars, any sweetener is going to be dissolved
anyway, so I'm not sure its consistency before dissolving really
matters. I have read a paper indicating that fructose doesn't make
you feel as full as cane sugar. The dubiously reliable wikipedia
page indicates that the HFCS used in soda is 55% fructose (with the
rest of the sugar in it being glucose), which means there's only
marginally more fructose than in table sugar and they taste
similarly sweet.
|5.3.06 @ 4:32PM|#
Timothy, you are right; I have to correct what I said about fructose being glucose and sucrose - should have been the other way around. thanks!
|5.3.06 @ 4:46PM|#
Capiche?
I guess not. Are you talking about corn syrup being bad for your
liver, or diet soda? Or both? I avoid corn syrup, along with most
processed carbs. That's why I drink diet sodas.
More energy = harder work = more wear and tear.
Somewhat OT: That sounds like an argument I've heard against eating
char-grilled foods. Also, partially hydrogenated oils.
If there's evidence that Splenda or Aspertame have negative effects
on the liver, I'd appreciate if you could point it out to me. This
is not a sarcastic comment.
BP - sorry, my sense of humor was taking a nap. FWIW, I think your
proposal and the one in the article would have an equal chance of
succeeding.
|5.3.06 @ 5:07PM|#
I guess not. Are you talking about corn syrup being bad for
your liver, or diet soda? Or both? I avoid corn syrup, along with
most processed carbs. That's why I drink diet sodas.
SmokingPenguin,
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about from a chemist's
perspective (AmyLou seems to know more about this). My point is
that there is an unnaturally large amount of excess sugar in most
processed foods and beverages (in this case, sports drinks). If not
excess amounts of sugar, then excess amounts of chemicals and
preservatives (diet soda). Regardless of whether these are harder
on your liver than fats or proteins, its still crap for your body.
You can't properly replace fuel with sugar in an engine, so why is
your body any different? At least that's how I view it. I realize
that this is not the most scientific of explanations. Take that as
you will.
If there's evidence that Splenda or Aspertame have negative
effects on the liver, I'd appreciate if you could point it out to
me. This is not a sarcastic comment.
SP,
I don't really know of any scientific evidence supporting this or
refuting it. This might be a good topic to research. I don't know;
I suppose I find that learning about the things I am consuming for
my wellbeing (in theory) is at least mildly interesting, if for no
other reason than biological self-interest and
self-preservation.
R C Dean|5.3.06 @ 5:09PM|#
More energy = harder work = more wear and tear.
Sounds like a good reason to not work out.
|5.3.06 @ 5:29PM|#
More energy = harder work = more wear and tear.
Sounds like a good reason to not work out.
R C Dean,
Yeah, I like to use that one for my anti-exercise position, too.
It's versitile that way.
|5.3.06 @ 6:36PM|#
Well, smacky, I agree with you that excess sugar is bad for you.
The concept of "balance" in a diet is not in play when junk food is
made; hence the name "junk food."
SP, no evidence to date that in its 20+ year history of being sold
to consumers, Splenda has not been proven to cause cancer or any
other illnesses or disorders. It is a sugar (sucrose) molecule that
has a chlorine ion bonded to the 2 of the oxides in the chain -
technically a chlorinated carbohydrate, and still sweet to the
taste, only our body doesn't recognize it so it passes through our
systems, inert and intact. when no metabolism of the molecule takes
place, it cannot break down into anything, whether it be
potentially useful or potentially harmful.
I will disagree with smacky's analogy about replacing fuel in an
engine with sugar - there is a good reason why it won't work:
combustion engines are designed to do displacement work, where air
is literally and forcefully displaced by pistons in the cylinder to
propel a drive shaft or turbine or whatever it is connected to.
Though petroleum fuels (technically fats which are a glyceryl
molecule or several away from a carbohydrate) are burned to drive
the displacement. Combustion of the physical kind is necessary -
spark from a plug (or compression in the case of a diesel engine)
ignites the fuel, and heat expands the air up into the piston,
displacing the air in the cylinder, etc. In the body, the process
is chemical and incredibly complex. It involves oxidation,
phosporous molecules, mitochodria, sodium-potassium pumps - it does
not just stop at glucose, glucose is sort of like gasoline, but it
requires breakdown at a chemical level and involves myriad
processes all to make an oxygen molecule cascade down a chemical
chain to eventually create adenosine triphosphate to cause cells to
do what they do. And each individual cell in the body has a
different purpose, and requires this ATP to drive muscle
contractions, move electrical impulses across neurons, receive
photonic energy for sight, reproduce, etc. etc.
sugar is necessary - when we don't have it in our diet, our body
begins to feed on itself in a process called ketosis which is for
very obese people is beneficial but for the rest of us is
potentially deadly. that is why we crave sweet foods, its natural
to do that since we live on it. but a diet fuelled solely by sugar,
and little else, is also deadly, because sugar is consumed at the
expense of necessary protein, fats, vitamins, minerals, etfc.
perhaps there is a market out there for vitamin and mineral
enriched, splenda sweetened, protein enhanced beverages and foods.
Oh wait, I forgot, that already exists. its called GNC 100% Whey
and it tastes like chocolate milk. perhaps instead of soda they
could stock Vending machines with pre-made health shakes. Or how
about this - teach BASIC NUTRITION in school. How difficult could
that be?
|5.3.06 @ 6:39PM|#
doesnt this lead to soda becoming the first gateway drug.
or wait, is that still milk?
|5.3.06 @ 8:27PM|#
smacky - thanks for responding. My questions were sincere. I
thought you might have found a smoking gun somewhere that I didn't
know about. For now, I'll worry more about alcohol intake than
Splenda at this point for my liver's sake...
AmyLou - thanks for responding. The chemistry is interesting. It
sounds like Splenda is similar to Olestra in that they are both
chemically created to be "pass-through" indigestible. Better living
through chemistry, indeed.
Since I participated in a threadjack, let me also add that John P's
point about cheap energy playing a part really resonates with me. I
think one of the main reasons why Europeans are much less heavier
than Americans is that so many of them use public transportation,
meaning they still have to walk a few miles a day. If people really
want kids to lose weight, have school buses stop a mile before the
school, and have all the kids trudge the rest of the way to
class.
|5.4.06 @ 1:01AM|#
"we don't know it was a gun. Could have been electrodes to
the gonads. Or ripped out fingernails. Or a menacing guillotine in
the corner of the room. Maybe he made like he was going to spooge
on their dresses."
We know for sure that it isn't a gun, because if it had been
flagrantly mishandled, resulting in a negligent
discharge, you'd be calling for Gaston Glock's head on a silver
platter.
Back on topic, it's patently obvious that this is nothing more than
a feelgood solution. The kids who really want industrial strength
soda will either bring it from home, or buy it from other
enterprising students.
The adults get to pat themselves on the back because they've "done
something for the children" and the kids will just roll their eyes
and circumvent it.
The entire thing is as dumb as Jersey McJones is crazy.
|5.4.06 @ 2:02AM|#
Gaston Glock's head on a silver platter
John Doe XXIII, you have a real name now, baby! Thanks.
|5.4.06 @ 12:17PM|#
What the fuck are you yammering about?
Dave, I know you're crazy, but could you at least try to work the
whole endearingly nuts angle rather than the batshit insane
angle?
Timothy|5.4.06 @ 1:03PM|#
If anybody is still reading this, I'm looking at the nutirion
information for some Tropicana 100% apple juice here, and it's got
25g of sugar per 8oz serving, the 15.2oz container has 48g of
sugar.
http://www.kfl.com/spsb.html
Explains about the sugar ratios in commercial apple juices, but
there's roughly twice as much fructose as there is glucose, and
sucrose (each in equal proportion) takes up 10-20% of the sugar
total...so, you're looking at 80-90% of the remaining sugar being
2:1 fructose/glucose. So, someplace between about 53% and 60% of
the remaining sugar will be fructose, meaning that the total
fructose content of the 100% apple juice I just drank is somewhere
between 58% and 70% of the 48g of total sugar. So, somewhere
between 27.84g and 33.6g of fructose from that single
container.
If you're sufficiently motivated, feel free to back out the numbers
for a 12oz serving to have a direct comparison to soda. Point is
that this 100% apple juice, with no sugar added, contains a higher
proportion of fructose than Coca Cola which is sweeted with
HFCS.
Dave W.|5.4.06 @ 2:14PM|#
Point is that this 100% apple juice, with no sugar added,
contains a higher proportion of fructose than Coca Cola which is
sweeted with HFCS.
Maybe the type of fructose in apple juice is only as harmful as
cane (or even less harmful), but the HFCS in coke is much more
harmful than that. That is a possibility and one that should have
been explored b4 now. i don't know the nature of the processing
that yields the HFCS for Coke, but I am going to guess that it is
more highly processed than the fructose in the apple juice. That
might make a difference.
I just can't believe that neither the FDA nor the private sector
has seen fit to generate answers on this yet. If the tort lawyers
have to do the testing themselves, and find HFCS-related
extra-special-badness, then I hope they show no mercy in court.
|5.4.06 @ 2:22PM|#
Maybe the type of fructose in apple juice is only as harmful
as cane (or even less harmful), but the HFCS in coke is much more
harmful than that.
How are there different types of fructose? It's a molecule.
Fructose is fructose is fructose.
Dave W.|5.4.06 @ 2:51PM|#
response to Ellie:
Maybe there are other ingredients in HFCS. Maybe these ingredients
come from the corn that is processed. Maybe they come from the
processing. Maybe they are an accidental by-product of the original
corn and the processing. Maybe the process of breaking down sucrose
in the body triggers a different set of reactions than eating
equivalent amounts of sucrose constituents already broken down.
Maybe there are other potential differences we haven't thought of
yet.
The Wiki did not answer these questions for me to my satisfaction.
I know sucrose tastes different and interacts differently with sour
flavors (eg, the citrus in coke and slice). So my tongue thinks
there is a difference. I am reasonably confident that I could
differentiate HFCS and sucrose versions of the same soda
(especially if it has some sour, like citrus).
One thing the Wiki did tell me is that HFCS is not popular in
Europe. The diabetes differential between the US and England should
be explainable somehow. You are going to have a hard time
convincing me that the British don't have a taste for sweets. HFCS
seems like one of the more likly explanations. Someday we will
probably kick ourselves (if we still have feet) for not figuring
this out sooner.
Dave W.|5.4.06 @ 2:58PM|#
also according to the Wiki, HFCS starts from corn starch, rather
than corn. So there may be by-products from when the corn is turned
into cornstarch.
the wiki also notes that hfcs comes from genetically modified corn,
but we North Americans know that GM corn has been proven safe
beyond any doubt in study after study after study (I haven't read
the studies myself, but I have faith). So I doubt that there is a
problem on that particular aspect.
Timothy|5.4.06 @ 4:40PM|#
Try the URL below for the manufacture of Corn Syrup. Pretty
straight forward, if you ask me.
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-4/Corn-Syrup.html
Timothy|5.4.06 @ 4:55PM|#
Also, I just did a little more arithmetic. The 37.5g of sugar in
a 12oz serving of my aforementioned apple juice from this morning
is somewhere between 58% and 70% fructose. So somewhere between
21.75g fructose and 26.35g fructose. The 39g of sugar in this
Cocacola Classic are 55% fructose, or 21.45g. So, at best, the
apple juice and coke are just about equal in their levels of
fructose. The apple juice has some nutrients, so it's probably a
shade better on the whole.
As for why HFCS isn't popular in Europe, I'm going to guess they're
not beholden to ADM and the US sugar producing lobby.
Dave W.|5.4.06 @ 6:18PM|#
Timothy raises another possibility which is that Coke and fruit
juice are equivalent as diabetes-causers on a per unit volume
basis. When was the last time you saw anybody drink a big gulp cup
full of apple juice, Timothy?
I think a diabetes comparison between cane Coke and HFCS coke would
be a more apt comparison. Because customers got conditioned to
keying their consumption based on the sucrose drink. After those
expectations build up for 75 years or so, it is not really fair to
up the diabetes causation agent (if that is what happened) and not,
you know, alert the market in some fashion. It is not nice to wait
for an epidemic disease to start being curious about this kind of
thing.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245