Obesity

Milk v. Coke

|

does this bowler hat make me look fat?

A linkalicious follow-up on Tuesday's post about San Francisco's ban on Coke in vending machines in city property in favor of milk, from Cato's Jason Kuznicki who asks: What can I say?

I could say that a twelve ounce can of Coca-Cola has fewer calories than twelve ounces of whole milk, because it does — 140 to 216.

I could say that you'll be even fatter if you substitute whole milk for Coke, ounce for ounce, because you will be.

I could say that the extra nutrients in milk don't do anything to make it less fattening, because they don't.

I could say that 12 ounces of soy milk has 198 calories, which is still well above Coke's 140.

I could even say that switching to skim milk doesn't help you all that much — if you do the math, you'll find that there are 124.5 calories in 12oz of skim milk, compared, again, to 140 for Coke.

I could also point out that a tall Starbucks Frappuccino — also 12 ounces, and not covered by the ban — has 190 calories, largely from sugar and fat.

I could ask: Does anyone ever order a plain Frappuccino? A tall mocha Frappuccino has 220 calories.

Finally, I could point out that banning vending-machine drinks while leaving Starbucks untouched is a pretty rank example of class privilege at work — my indulgences are sophisticated and upper-class, while yours are vulgar and prole.

Drink up!

Advertisement

NEXT: On Swaps and Resets

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. San Francisco is a fucking nightmare. But at least they haven’t banned Leonardo’s sexy Titanic haircut…

    1. I think fashion banned that haircut long ago.

    2. The Taliban, when they were still in control of Afghanistan, banned that hairstyle, along with sundry other things.

      1. They banned the head itself, by removing it with an ax.

  2. Maybe people who are lactose-intolerant should demand that SF ban milk?

    1. Nah – being lactose-intolerant will just get you signed up for mandatory diversity training. Intolerance of any kind will not be tolerated!

    2. And the advocates of raw milk should also stand up for their rights.

      No pasteurization without representation!

  3. Meh. Who ever heard of Kokaa-Kol Vellocet?

    1. I have heard it, oh my brother! KokaakolPlus sets me for an evening of ultraviolence.

  4. It’s just the mayor posturing for a bunch of people who are fucking stupid enough to think that he’s actually doing something positive. There is no helping or cure for these douchebags, because if they weren’t absolute idiots, they’d have at least considered checking the calorie counts on these items. Just to see.

    1. I like it when they issue ordinances addressing international policy.

      1. That’s always a hoot. Or banning someone from their city, as if they could do that. Hilarious.

        1. Oh, man, that would be so awesome to be banned from San Francisco. Then to show up right after the ban. Publicly.

    2. It’s just the mayor posturing for a bunch of people who are fucking stupid enough to think that he’s actually doing something positive.

      Ding!

      Give this man a cupie doll

      Pure political atmospherics. SF voters LOVE empty, meaningless, nannying gestures. “there aughtta be a law”! Its just him posturing against an invisible “big obesity-generating Soda conspiracy”

    3. Ironically, the folks who mandated that these calorie counts be listed on each package are the same ones pushing this bill that would lead to higher calorie consumption.

  5. Soda is the worst crap to put in your system. Milk has good fat. Get your ass off the couch and exercise a little.

    1. What about actual crap? I’d rather drink soda. Epi might disagree.

      1. “I only drink Patron.”

        (anybody else watch the new Tosh.0 last night?)

        1. saw part of it. Including that part.

          1. The Guido Sensation!

        2. I have a six inch penis.

          1. Six inches or five and three-quarters?

    2. Care to back that up with some medical facts?

      There’s no study that shows diet soda to be unhealthy.

      Sure, drinking regular soda adds empty calories but diet soda has no calories and no fat – unlike milk.

      1. “empty calories”?

        You mean non-nutrative? Fine. But so does every other sweetened beverage by that rationale. Soda isnt unique in this regard. And “empty” calories are still calories… which most people burn off in a regular semi active lifestyle. The only people for whom Soda is a lifestyle risk are the ones who drink 2+ 12oz can of soda every day, and never ever do anything to burn calories. Which I find appalling… I drink one or two a month, mostly because I’m just not that into the stuff; but I also drink teas, fruit drinks, etc, about 1 a day, and it does nothing negative to my health at all. They are basically the same stuff: carbs, water, and flavoring. Soda is simply something people have become culturally inclined to believe is uniquely unhealthy when it isnt particularly, so long as you arent guzzling the stuff constantly.

        I once knew this Samoan guy who lived in Washington st., and he had weight issues (reference Pulp Fiction: “”I wouldn’t go so far as to call the brother fat, I mean he got a weight problem. What’s the n****r gonna do? He’s Samoan””) Well this guy is actually fat. 400lbs+. One time he was whinging about trying to lose weight, and mentions he’d stopped drinking a 3 LITER BOTTLE OF SODA each day. He’d cut back to 2. I was like, mythbusters style, “Well, *there’s* your problem!” I couldnt believe anyone could swill so much of that crap, diet or no. But anyone doing something like that is going to have problems no matter what form they’re chugging calories in. Give him 3 cartons of milk, and you have the same problem basically. Its not the product, its’ *behaviors*

      2. There’s no study that shows diet soda to be unhealthy.

        Don’t brown sodas contain phosphorous that can leech calcium from bones?

        1. Ah, yeah…except for that 🙂

          I was making a general point. Yes, the shit is bad for your teeth, and bad in other various ways, but largely only if consumed (in what I would call) excessive quantities.

          Are they as good as fresh-pressed apple juice (that has the same amount of ‘sugar’? No way.

          Are they responsible for fatties and health problems all over the country? Not really. They’re not healthy, but neither is Vitamin Water, really (crystalline fructose – the sweetener they use as an alternative to HFCS, is processed almost exclusively by the liver, compared to other sweeteners which are metabolized by every cell in the body. Not good for people on cold medicine or weak livers, or heavy drinkers.)

          In any case, my point was that almost all beverages are water, flavoring, and sweeteners of one type or another. Discrimination among them is mostly in the fine print, and not generally important unless you’re some kind of freak like the fat samoan friend I mentioned.

          1. A point that may make this clearer: I was looking at my Tropicana Apple Juice bottle next to me, looked at the front and it says:

            “100% Juice!
            (from concentrate with other natural flavors and ingredients)”

            Look on the back:

            “Contains concentrates from Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Argentine, Chile, Turkey, Brazil, China, and the United States”

            FYI = standard practice in labeling is to list things in order of importance. So the last/least supplier of importance to the juice in my bottle is the US. WTF? How does it require products from 10 countries to make a single bottle of apple juice??

            Because even though it’s “100% juice”, its not really “juice” in the traditional sense. Its ingredients that are derived from extracts, that are mixed and finalized in the ‘manufacturing’ country. Makes you wonder how many apples even made it into the product, right? The fact is, its got some base water, some “apple” flavorings, and a lot of different juice-based stabilizers, preservatives, emulsifiers, colorants, sweeteners, and so on.

            100% anything, it aint. Is it better for you than soda? Probably. But it is not some ‘untainted’, anti-commercial product that will bring us to the promised land of Pure Beverage Goodness. Again, all beverages are water, flavorings, and sweeteners. Get used to it, world.

  6. Does drinking a glass of milk every day double your risk of diabetes, though?

    Not that people should be herded this way, they should be able to drink whatever they damn well please. I’m just sticking up for the low-carbers out there.

    1. i don’t know but lactose is a sugar.

      1. But lactose isn’t as easily converted to glucose and milk has protein too, so it probably has a lower glycemic index overall.

  7. For the non-starbucks dwellers, a “tall” is the equivalent of a “small” or about 12 ounces (including a substantial amount of ice)

    1. I’m not sure where he brought Starbucks in from. It’s not like they’re given space on site. Are they?

      1. I think it was to compare a nutritional benefits non-demonized beverage to that of soda. Which is stupid, because the last time someone made a comparison like this it was comparing the ill effects of smoking to those of fast food and was followed by the subsequent banning of fast food.

        1. “to compare the nutritional benefits of a”

          Not too good at the “composing sentences” thing today…

      2. I think he’s talking about the bottled Frappucinos, which apparently are still allowed to go into the vending machines.

  8. mmmm Frappucino…

  9. Threadjack:

    Can somebody please tell me what this guy could possibly think is the basis for his claim to have been damaged?

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/…..google_cnn

    1. The lack of recognition led to the denial of his Dancing with the Stars application.

    2. I’m thinking he might have been able to impress chicks by claiming he was LeBron’s daddy. By covering up his fatherhood, the vast conspiracy has hypothetically cock-blocked him from easily-impressed women who would want to bear future basketball greats.

    3. “The lawsuit claims Stovell met James’ mother, Gloria, in a Washington bar and restaurant in 1984, where she was visiting from Ohio. She was 16 at the time, Stovell says, and they had sex only once.”

      So if she wasn’t old enough to drink, where in this bar/restaurant did he meet her? And did he just admit to having sex with a minor? Who is this guy?

      “Public records show Stovell is a former government attorney…”

      Oh.

      1. 16 is the age of consent in D.C., so she is not a “minor” in sexual matters.

  10. This is why I take a thermos full of vodka to work. Try and ban that you fuckers.

    1. I just switched to Purple Drank. Nothing riles me at work anymore.

    2. I suggest using an empty can of soda. Less obvious. I’ve been drunk pretty much everywhere in Chicago with that little number.

  11. A couple of my more cosmo type acquaintances recently brought up this subject when I ordered a rum and Coke.

    I don’t talk about politics with these people, because they’re retarded (my being an anarchist who do campaign work for Democrats is “contradictory,” they say, for example), but I spectated while they reassured each other that a sody tax is needed because “Mountain Dew isn’t food” so poor people shouldn’t be “encouraged” to buy it, the fizzy beverage “industry” is “nonessential,” and “pop is nasty.”

    I don’t know where all Educated People get their orders, but Whitey is suddenly unanimous about this. The NYC tax failed last week, but the Man never gives up. Hoard dat Pibb, yo.

    1. For what its worth, it seems to me like the local meth addicts get most of their caloric intake from soda and other liquids. So yeah, they might be adversely affected by the soda tax.

    2. Pibb Xtra is delicious. It’s the soda that doesn’t think it’s a doctor.

      1. Yes, but does it have electrolytes?

        1. it’s got what plants need.

      2. I second this. Whenever it’s available at the fountain, I’m all over it.

    3. Do you live in California? They sound like West-tards to me.

  12. Does San Francisco realize how much Global Warming dairy farms produce?

  13. “doesn’t do,” I mean

    1. I was wondering about that…

  14. Someone pointed out on another site that this may be designed to make a company the only contractor for the service …

  15. The fact that milky-white liquids are preferred to sodas in San Francisco is not a shock to me. I have a feeling buttermilk will be a real hit. Yes, I am a homophobe.

    1. Hahaha, the Cali Dairy Board should try that– Milk, the other white drink—

      Hahahaha

  16. “my indulgences are sophisticated and upper-class, while yours are vulgar and prole.”

    fastfood, soda pop, Nascar…yes, indeed, that’s exactly how these assholes think.

  17. Jason Kuznicki’s “reasoning” sucks. If he was trying to be snarky, it failed, big time.

    1. 1) Drink,
      2) saying something “sucks” does not present a rebuttal to any presented argument. So… you want to try a little harder there, oh clever one?

  18. From the San Antonio Fit City/Fit Schools Campaign, Healthy Vending Guidelines. (pdf)

    Enjoy the new options. Eat Healthier. Lead by example.

    😛

    1. I think they meant, “Be Lead By the Example of Self Righteous Progressives”

  19. Again, would anyone care if IBM or GE did it with their vending machines? If not, why would anyone care if SF does it with their vending machines?

    1. Because when these micro-managing statist idiots leverage their power in innocuous but idiotic ways, it emboldens them to do idiotic things like banning pet sales. Idiocy in government should always be spotlighted.

      1. Okay, so are you outraged if they stop selling Coke in GE’s cafeteria?

        1. GE has no legislative authority over my life. Thus, what GE does is potentially good for a laugh, but isn’t as worthy of commentary on a website such as this.

          And I’m not outraged. Calling out nitwits is not an expression of outrage. I’d go so far as to say it’s my civic duty to keep politicians in check.

    2. Can you not find a new question? You tried this last time and got your ass handed to them.

      Your example is stupid in any case, because they DONT because employees would go WTF!! They dont care about soda making people fat because it DOESNT by itself, and they’d rather make their $$ off the vending machines rather than play arbiter of their employees choices.

      Please go back to the previous post where we clarified that anyone CAN make these decisions, but DONT because its blindingly fucking stupid! Hope that helps.

      1. “To them?” To You. Sorry. Maybe I thought of you and ChicagoTom as a multi-headed entity.

        1. So, when GE makes a blindingly stupid decision, are you this outraged?

          1. If GE was advertising that they did this, as the SF city government has, yes, yes I would.

  20. Demon cola!

  21. He’s a fool if he thinks that all calories are the same, but he’s correct that these bans are retarded and will cause unintended consequences. Fuck do-gooders.

    1. But Warty, they’ll go to hebbin.

      1. No one goes to heaven but kitties and Raelians, you fool.

        1. I have to break the news to my wife. She, and her beloved dogs are going to hell. I’ve been trying to get her to become a follower of Rael, ever since I found out about their penchant for free love and wild sex orgies.

        2. Dude, I guess you didn’t see my post yesterday about what God does with those kitties.

    2. I thought a calorie was a measure of energy. How are calories different from each other?

      Now that I’ve found out that drinking an average of a quart of whole milk a day for decades has put my risk of diabetes through the roof I need to learn more about this nutrition stuff.

      1. Switch to a liter of Coke per day. That’ll fix your pancreas right up, and your liver too.

        1. I read that five cups of coffee a day will protect the liver. I don’t know what it’s doing to my kidneys, though.

          1. The statistic was that high levels of coffee consumption seems to have an effect of reducing the impact of alcohol consumption on the liver. Like, 3+ cups a day, and you reduce your risk of cirrosis by like 20% or something. Let me go find the study.

            a ha:

            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13281392/

            “””In a study of more than 125,000 people, one cup of coffee per day cut the risk of alcoholic cirrhosis by 20 percent. Four cups per day reduced the risk by 80 percent. The coffee effect held true for women and men of various ethnic backgrounds.””

            This may explain why drinkers Love their cup o’ joe.

        2. I’ve heard the argument about the pancreas, and it sounds plausible, but the liver sounds novel. You got a link?

          1. Free fructose (i.e. not sucrose) is only metabolized in the liver.

          2. Non-alcoholic fatty liver is one manifestation of metabolic syndrome, along with diabetes, kidney trouble, obesity, heart disease, etc etc etc. Basically, eating too much sugar ruins your organs just like being an alcoholic.

      2. You don’t see any difference between a shot of pure ethanol and a glass of milk?

        1. I can’t remember. It’s been a long time since I drank any milk.

        2. Calorie-wise?

          I don’t believe that steak is ice cream is tofu is tequila, I just don’t understand how the calories contained in each are different from each other.

          1. If you understand that carbs, fats and amino acids have different metabolic functions, then I don’t really know what to say.

          2. Nutritive vs. Non-nutrative calories – can’t find a simple summary for you on der web, but simply put: some calories are tied up in complex molecules that break out additional nutritive components (vitamins, minersals, antioxidants, whatever) when your body separates the glucose/fructose/lactose out of it. Simple sweeteners, by and large, are just the sugar with none of the other nutritive stuff. Additionally, when the body breaks down the more complex nutritive molecules (like milk fat), it reduces the sugars to a form that the body breaks down most effectively, whereas a lot of these simpler sweeteners are harder and slower to break down, resulting in a ton of ‘excess’ caloric material that your body doesn’t necessarily need (or recognize as needed), and which may end up being stored, translating to fat, etc.

            Thats a pretty caveman explanation, and anyone with basic high school biology will probably laugh at me, but thats as simply as I understand it. Sugar from a fresh fruit is broken down much more effectively by the body than is the extracted fructose added to unsweetened concentrated fruit juices. The idea of bioavailability is also involved in there somewhere: e.g. a glass of milk has more ‘bioavailable’ calcium than say a calcium supplement that has the same (or more!) theoretical calcium in it, because your body instantly recognizes the molecule the calcium in milk is tied up in, while the isolated mineral, on its own, is mostly passed through as pee-colorant. Though some is used, obviously. Hope this helps somewhat.

            1. However my understanding is that in terms of _weight gain_ specifically, research into whether the calories actually are different has come up empty.

              Where it appears these things come into play are in the areas of how they affect behavior. But in terms of the direct effects on weight, it appears that a calorie is a calorie.

              How we react to ingesting different types of calories is the difference.

              1. This a hot topic, but there’s no shortage of studies supporting low carb diets.

                BTW, this Ein-Eout=fat is simplistic nonsense and clearly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

                1. Right but the mechanism for these appear to be the hunger satiating effects of protein rather than a difference in calories.

                  In other words you tend to eat less calories on Atkins’ type stuff because you tend to feel fuller. To the best of my knowledge, however, the consensus right now is the calories count the same either way.

                  1. Heavily weighted, but not a consensus. I’m not really invested either way because any diet that isn’t “eat reasonable portions of healthy food” is going to fail eventually (and is kinda gay).

                    But this marginal high-carb/high-fight controversy is a side issue from the original point. Bombarding your liver with massive amounts of fructose has real effects that’s different calorie for calorie than most anything that isn’t alcohol.

  22. WTF? Laverne De Fazio needs to school SF City Hall about the miracle of Pepsi Milk. That’s a delicious drank.

  23. I appreciate Kuznicki’s exasperation. But everything he wrote about Coke v Milk is wrong, because calories have nothing to do with obesity per se.

    The USDA-Monsanto-FDA-NGO cartel pushing the calorie line is getting extremely frustrating. Need.to.punch.something

    1. “calories have nothing to do with obesity per se”

      Huh?

    2. Sorry guys, the time-lock on his bunker only opens for half an hour a day so he can empty his latrine. Any more than that, and the AgriBizernment establishment elites will take over his mind with MSG rays in the air.

      1. Oh I see so you are okay with corporatism. Thanks for playing “libertarian”

    3. Hard to beat the energy budget. Like any other system energy in – energy out == energy retained. In mammals, usually as white fat.

      1. Kelvin, Planck, and Clausius do not agree.

  24. Proles. Nuff said.

  25. Prole
    (Newb)

  26. Non fat chocolate camel milk? Starbucks latest 8 dollar treat?

    The residents of San Francisco will some day soon be killing for a sip of clean water.

  27. But it’s the state’s *right*!!

    (logic be damned!)

  28. “I could say that you’ll be even fatter if you substitute whole milk for Coke, ounce for ounce, because you will be.”

    And you can came to this brilliant conclusion how Katherine? You’re own personal experience? A “scientific study” brought to you by your friendly neighborhood soda distributors association?

    I drink whole milk, not in great volume, but I do drink it regularly and I stopped drinking soda, diet or regular, and I lost weight and have stayed there. Feel great.

    This whole anti-fat bull shit is frustrating. If I see another pasty face tub of lard or soft looking yuppy telling me that sugar from fruit is bad for you or that “fat” is a killer while they devour another roll, pizza slice, and soft drink… whatever, they can feed themselves however they want. Just stop lecturing on nutrition like you actually know what you’re talking about. This goes for you too Katherine.

    That said, banning soda vending is lame. But so is this blog post.

  29. Serious question: They always talk about anybody who eats food item X getting Y calories from it. But human beings aren’t calorimeters; do we all really absorb the same number of calories when we eat food item X?

    Milk would be an extreme example. I’m definitely not going to get 216 calories from drinking 12 oz. of whole milk. To try to put it politely, that milk ain’t going to hang out in my digestive tract long enough for me to absorb all those calories.

    But, even in the less extreme cases, it seems likely that different people would have different calorie absorption rates, just like people vary in other ways. Wouldn’t they?

    1. Non-diabetics don’t, uh, expel many calories.

  30. The latest from SF Board of Supervisors? Banning the sale of pets within the city, because people buy them on impulse and mistreat or abandon them.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…..1EAT90.DTL

  31. But milk doesn’t contain high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

    1. Neither does my cock. Open up.

      1. Actually, fructose is a significant component of your … essence.

  32. Man I could sure go for an Ice Cold Coke right now!

    Lou
    http://www.web-anonymity.au.tc

    1. I hope you’re not in SF, anon-bot

  33. “I could say that the extra nutrients in milk don’t do anything to make it less fattening, because they don’t.”

    Hmmmm, I wonder if those “extra nutrients” mean anything to our health. Nah, probably just some stupid vitamins or something. Sugar water is better for us anyway.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.