4 ms·

Is it the sugar or BPA lined cans? Also do they mean "sugar" or high fructose corn syrup? Seems like men had higher test levels in the era of glass bottles and

Is it the sugar or BPA lined cans? Also do they mean "sugar" or high fructose corn syrup? Seems like men had higher test levels in the era of glass bottles and real sugar soda.

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
You'd think you can compare that by also looking at artificial sweeteners.
- klipklop 6y ago
  Agreed. I am not saying that full-sugar soda is healthy, but it seems in the past people ate a lot of sugar and seemed to have less endocrine problems than they do today.
  - spoonjim 6y ago
    Even 50 years ago even white collar people did a lot more physical work then they do now.
  - dublin 6y ago
    That's unquestionably what the observational evidence shows. (Just look at pictures of soldiers and other men from WWII (wiry and rail-thin, but strong), Vietnam (still skinny, but getting heavier), and Iraq/Afghanistan (a surprising number of guts and much more flabbiness). My guess is that there's more to both HFCS vs. sugar and the continuous exposure to endocrine disruptors in food, food packaging, etc. Think about it - how little of your life are you not in contact with plastics anymore? (If you're typing a reply, you're rubbing on those plasticizers again...)
intergalplan 6y ago
In the era of glass bottles and real-sugar soda, we drank a hell of a lot less soda. The era of free refills on sodas not just existing but being expected, and 32-ounce "medium" size soft drinks is quite recent. Also, I'm unconvinced a small difference in the balance between glucose and fructose is worth treating HFCS as different from beet or cane sugar. Its effect on the price of sugar is a different matter, however. [EDIT] see the 1989 skate film Gleaming the Cube for an example from a few years before free refills started being advertised fairly frequently, and a solid decade before they became the overwhelming norm: there's a Pizza Hut in it with an advertisement posted on the side of the building for a special on pitchers... of soda, not of beer.
- ssully 6y ago
  This is what I was thinking. Rate of consumption between then and now has to heavily skew towards now. I've worked with multiple people who would come to work with a 64oz of soda (diet, if that matters) in the morning, finish it by lunch time, and come back from lunch with it refilled. I assume these people are extreme cases, but even average soda consumption has to be on the high end.
  - intergalplan 6y ago
    It's really easy, even if you're not that big a soda fiend and wouldn't think of downing 128 ounces of soda at work (these people are less rare than one might hope, I think, though), to accidentally down 40+ ounces with a long meal, with a waiter coming by refilling your drink every few minutes. Things were different when you had to ask for a refill, and understood you'd be paying for two drinks to get it. Then you get specials that make the unlimited soda effectively $0.30 or whatever. Ugh.
kixiQu 6y ago
I do agree that this investigation seems warranted but they are specific about saying that it seems like "some component" in the beverages is responsible, not even saying glucose or fructose etc. etc.

Is it the sugar or BPA lined cans? Also do they mean "sugar" or high fructose corn syrup? Seems like men had higher test levels in the era of glass bottles and real sugar soda.

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago

You'd think you can compare that by also looking at artificial sweeteners.

klipklop 6y ago
Agreed. I am not saying that full-sugar soda is healthy, but it seems in the past people ate a lot of sugar and seemed to have less endocrine problems than they do today.
- spoonjim 6y ago
  Even 50 years ago even white collar people did a lot more physical work then they do now.
- dublin 6y ago
  That's unquestionably what the observational evidence shows. (Just look at pictures of soldiers and other men from WWII (wiry and rail-thin, but strong), Vietnam (still skinny, but getting heavier), and Iraq/Afghanistan (a surprising number of guts and much more flabbiness). My guess is that there's more to both HFCS vs. sugar and the continuous exposure to endocrine disruptors in food, food packaging, etc. Think about it - how little of your life are you not in contact with plastics anymore? (If you're typing a reply, you're rubbing on those plasticizers again...)

intergalplan 6y ago

In the era of glass bottles and real-sugar soda, we drank a hell of a lot less soda. The era of free refills on sodas not just existing but being expected, and 32-ounce "medium" size soft drinks is quite recent. Also, I'm unconvinced a small difference in the balance between glucose and fructose is worth treating HFCS as different from beet or cane sugar. Its effect on the price of sugar is a different matter, however. [EDIT] see the 1989 skate film Gleaming the Cube for an example from a few years before free refills started being advertised fairly frequently, and a solid decade before they became the overwhelming norm: there's a Pizza Hut in it with an advertisement posted on the side of the building for a special on pitchers... of soda, not of beer.

ssully 6y ago
This is what I was thinking. Rate of consumption between then and now has to heavily skew towards now. I've worked with multiple people who would come to work with a 64oz of soda (diet, if that matters) in the morning, finish it by lunch time, and come back from lunch with it refilled. I assume these people are extreme cases, but even average soda consumption has to be on the high end.
- intergalplan 6y ago
  It's really easy, even if you're not that big a soda fiend and wouldn't think of downing 128 ounces of soda at work (these people are less rare than one might hope, I think, though), to accidentally down 40+ ounces with a long meal, with a waiter coming by refilling your drink every few minutes. Things were different when you had to ask for a refill, and understood you'd be paying for two drinks to get it. Then you get specials that make the unlimited soda effectively $0.30 or whatever. Ugh.

kixiQu 6y ago

I do agree that this investigation seems warranted but they are specific about saying that it seems like "some component" in the beverages is responsible, not even saying glucose or fructose etc. etc.