6 ms·

How is this possible? 2 cans is not much. Is it purely because of the sugar? But tons of other things contain sugar, so aren't they just as dangerous? What abo

How is this possible? 2 cans is not much. Is it purely because of the sugar? But tons of other things contain sugar, so aren't they just as dangerous? What about starch and other carbohydrates, like rice, pasta and bread? Inside the body they are converted to glucose. So does that mean that eating two-can-soda-equivalent amount of bread shows the same harmful effects? This doesn't make sense. EDIT: living in Netherlands.

orev 3y ago
The food industry has gone to great lengths to make people think that the amount of something is all that matters. Ultra processed foods might contain the same nutrients as fresh fruits or vegetables, but they’re clearly not the same. The physical structure of the item has an enormous impact on how healthy it is, and the rate of absorption is one of the most important factors for sugar related issues. One big shot of sugar all at once is hugely unhealthy, but when released over time (such as when eating a whole unprocessed fruit) isn’t detrimental at all.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  >The physical structure of the item has an enormous impact on how healthy it is, and the rate of absorption is one of the most important factors for sugar related issues. OK, but the glycemic index of cola is 60, which is roughly identical to fruits like kiwi, banana, mango and watermelon. EDIT: love the downvoting for literally providing a factual response here, people.
  - stnmtn 3y ago
    But don't soda have way more sugar than any of those? So you're still getting more sugar per $whatever_rate_of_time
    - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
      No? There's 25% more sugar in a mango than there is a regular 330ml can of Coca Cola. As is pointed out elsewhere, what the study actually seems to point out is that the diets of people who drink soda twice a week are likely to be worse-overall than those who eat two mangos a week.
  - throwway120385 3y ago
    What about the fibrous matter that makes up a portion of the fruits? Where's the analogue in soda?
    - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
      The extent to which "other things going on in the food" affect the rate of absorption is exactly what the GI tells you. I have no idea why the numbers are what they are in this case.
- tqi 3y ago
  > Ultra processed foods might contain the same nutrients as fresh fruits or vegetables, but they’re clearly not the same. How do they differ?
smcl 3y ago
I don't know where you're from so apologies if I'm making an incorrect assumption, but I will always be puzzled with Americans' with pasta being considered unhealthy. I frequently see pasta/bread being lambasted as unhealthy, and cheese being described as "a good source of protein". Admittedly bread=bad is more prevalent in the "carnivore diet" community (they're bonkers for other reasons, like thinking vegetables should be avoided for being unhealthy) but "pasta=bad, cheese=good" is pretty widespread.
- LinuxBender 3y ago
  In my opinion the devil's in the details. American pastas are more often than not highly processed components that have lost their nutritional value then have been enriched with low quality multi-vitamins. My understanding is that this is less common in say Italy where it is more likely to find things made from scratch.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    american bread is also very, very sugary compared to European bread. A lot of America is not getting regular bread from bakeries but from the supermarket. the typical american bread is white sandwich bread which also does not help.
    - dangerwill 3y ago
      This is true, and as a recent convert, I would like to recommend that other Americans check out their local farmers market to see if there is a baker that sets up shop. The difference between even "fancy" grocery store packaged bread and actual fresh bread is enough that I now consider grocery store bread to be essentially a different (worse) food
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    >American pastas are more often than not highly processed components that have lost their nutritional value then have been enriched with low quality multi-vitamins. What's the source of that claim? America's most popular pasta brand is Barilla (also probably Italy's most popular brand), and that's made with exactly the same ingredients, process and machinery in the US as it is in Italy.
riku_iki 3y ago
> So does that mean that eating two-can-soda-equivalent amount of bread shows the same harmful effects? This doesn't make sense. The major factor is how fast carbs are induced into blood stream. Bread has some fiber and also carbs are more complex, which makes process slower.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  Bread has a much higher glycemic index than cola, though. White bread is the "100" on the GI scale, and cola is 60 - that's roughly the "sourdough" range.
  - jraby3 3y ago
    Admittedly all people are different but while I was using a cgm cola had a much higher impact than two slices of white bread. Also surprisingly for me, pasta had a relatively low impact on my blood sugar.
    - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
      I haven't read much on this recently but I think the relatively lower GI of pasta was supposed to be related to the way the starches were in a fiber matrix or something like that.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    > White bread is the "100" on the GI scale, and cola is 60 It depends on methodology how you calculate it. For example this article says that per some methodology cola GI can be 91: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1989668/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1989668/ Also, I think GI is weight normalized, so you compare 250g of cola with 40g of carbs to 250g of white bread with 120g of carbs.
nonameiguess 3y ago
Most likely, a person consuming greater than or equal to two cans of sugar-sweetened beverages a day is also consuming other foods that are sugar-sweetened. A retrospective cohort study design like this has no way of preventing that from confounding any conclusions about the impact of just beverages if you're otherwise eating identically. I think "don't drink soda every day" is about as likely to be good advice for everyone as any diet advice a person gets, but as I ranted about in a very long comment yesterday, this is an inherent limitation of nutrition science. Even what is probably the actual study here that someone linked to says in its conclusion that what they found "supports current recommendations to limit the intake of SSBs even for physically active individuals." They make no claim that they found a concrete causal link and for sure soda will hurt you if it's your only vice.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  >Most likely, a person consuming greater than or equal to two cans of sugar-sweetened beverages a day is also consuming other foods that are sugar-sweetened. A retrospective cohort study design like this has no way of preventing that from confounding any conclusions about the impact of just beverages if you're otherwise eating identically. In other words, "don't eat the kind of diet that people who drink two or more cans of soda per week tend to eat"? If the message here is supposed to be “if you eat sensible portions of healthy foods and lots of vegetables but you also drink two Dr Peppers a week then you’re going to have measurably worse health outcomes” then I sure want to understand that.
goda90 3y ago
Something to consider in addition to the total glucose your body eventually gets from a food is the impact on your blood sugar and insulin. How fast they change matters. Also how those carbohydrates eventually become glucose might matter too. Starch gets broken down into glucose in the mouth, stomach and intestines(with varying speed based on structure). Fructose and sucrose(which is made of fructose and glucose) can't be used directly by the body like glucose. Sucrose gets split into glucose and fructose in the intestines. Fructose gets digested in the liver. Some hypothesize that excess fructose metabolization can cause long term issues.
- FooBarWidget 3y ago
  Rice and bread have a higher glycemic index (~75) than sugar (65) so what does that mean? I've never heard anybody saying rice is worse than sugar.
  - goda90 3y ago
    Depending on the processing and cooking. Brown rice and whole grain bread have lower. You'll find plenty of people saying to avoid white rice and bread. And the glycemic index is just one averaged measurement. Soda probably benefits from its high water content on that metric. Satiety and nutrition play a role. Soda provides no other nutrients and doesn't do much for hunger long term. A person will need to consume something more, which means more overall calories. While there may be better choices, at least rice and bread provide something with the glycemic response.
ksherlock 3y ago
It could also be that high fructose corn syrup is the issue rather than sugar.
marcosdumay 3y ago
What is on the title is absurd. Somebody linked to the actual paper, that isn't open, but from the abstract: - 2 cans a week is the amount it will start to be harmful. Effect size is proportional to the extra consumption. - It's a correlation detected over a large, but very homogenous population. There is space for all kinds of spurious results. That's reason to look for other studies, not to simply dismiss this one. - What it actually finds is that exercise benefits do not interfere at all with harm from excessive sugar. You can have either combination of them. - Non-sugared beverages effects (if any) were indistinguishable from noise. (IMO, that one is very surprising.)

orev 3y ago

The food industry has gone to great lengths to make people think that the amount of something is all that matters. Ultra processed foods might contain the same nutrients as fresh fruits or vegetables, but they’re clearly not the same. The physical structure of the item has an enormous impact on how healthy it is, and the rate of absorption is one of the most important factors for sugar related issues. One big shot of sugar all at once is hugely unhealthy, but when released over time (such as when eating a whole unprocessed fruit) isn’t detrimental at all.

NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
>The physical structure of the item has an enormous impact on how healthy it is, and the rate of absorption is one of the most important factors for sugar related issues. OK, but the glycemic index of cola is 60, which is roughly identical to fruits like kiwi, banana, mango and watermelon. EDIT: love the downvoting for literally providing a factual response here, people.
- stnmtn 3y ago
  But don't soda have way more sugar than any of those? So you're still getting more sugar per $whatever_rate_of_time
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    No? There's 25% more sugar in a mango than there is a regular 330ml can of Coca Cola. As is pointed out elsewhere, what the study actually seems to point out is that the diets of people who drink soda twice a week are likely to be worse-overall than those who eat two mangos a week.
- throwway120385 3y ago
  What about the fibrous matter that makes up a portion of the fruits? Where's the analogue in soda?
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    The extent to which "other things going on in the food" affect the rate of absorption is exactly what the GI tells you. I have no idea why the numbers are what they are in this case.
tqi 3y ago
> Ultra processed foods might contain the same nutrients as fresh fruits or vegetables, but they’re clearly not the same. How do they differ?

smcl 3y ago

I don't know where you're from so apologies if I'm making an incorrect assumption, but I will always be puzzled with Americans' with pasta being considered unhealthy. I frequently see pasta/bread being lambasted as unhealthy, and cheese being described as "a good source of protein". Admittedly bread=bad is more prevalent in the "carnivore diet" community (they're bonkers for other reasons, like thinking vegetables should be avoided for being unhealthy) but "pasta=bad, cheese=good" is pretty widespread.

LinuxBender 3y ago
In my opinion the devil's in the details. American pastas are more often than not highly processed components that have lost their nutritional value then have been enriched with low quality multi-vitamins. My understanding is that this is less common in say Italy where it is more likely to find things made from scratch.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  american bread is also very, very sugary compared to European bread. A lot of America is not getting regular bread from bakeries but from the supermarket. the typical american bread is white sandwich bread which also does not help.
  - dangerwill 3y ago
    This is true, and as a recent convert, I would like to recommend that other Americans check out their local farmers market to see if there is a baker that sets up shop. The difference between even "fancy" grocery store packaged bread and actual fresh bread is enough that I now consider grocery store bread to be essentially a different (worse) food
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  >American pastas are more often than not highly processed components that have lost their nutritional value then have been enriched with low quality multi-vitamins. What's the source of that claim? America's most popular pasta brand is Barilla (also probably Italy's most popular brand), and that's made with exactly the same ingredients, process and machinery in the US as it is in Italy.

riku_iki 3y ago

> So does that mean that eating two-can-soda-equivalent amount of bread shows the same harmful effects? This doesn't make sense. The major factor is how fast carbs are induced into blood stream. Bread has some fiber and also carbs are more complex, which makes process slower.

NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
Bread has a much higher glycemic index than cola, though. White bread is the "100" on the GI scale, and cola is 60 - that's roughly the "sourdough" range.
- jraby3 3y ago
  Admittedly all people are different but while I was using a cgm cola had a much higher impact than two slices of white bread. Also surprisingly for me, pasta had a relatively low impact on my blood sugar.
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    I haven't read much on this recently but I think the relatively lower GI of pasta was supposed to be related to the way the starches were in a fiber matrix or something like that.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  > White bread is the "100" on the GI scale, and cola is 60 It depends on methodology how you calculate it. For example this article says that per some methodology cola GI can be 91: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1989668/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1989668/ Also, I think GI is weight normalized, so you compare 250g of cola with 40g of carbs to 250g of white bread with 120g of carbs.

nonameiguess 3y ago

Most likely, a person consuming greater than or equal to two cans of sugar-sweetened beverages a day is also consuming other foods that are sugar-sweetened. A retrospective cohort study design like this has no way of preventing that from confounding any conclusions about the impact of just beverages if you're otherwise eating identically. I think "don't drink soda every day" is about as likely to be good advice for everyone as any diet advice a person gets, but as I ranted about in a very long comment yesterday, this is an inherent limitation of nutrition science. Even what is probably the actual study here that someone linked to says in its conclusion that what they found "supports current recommendations to limit the intake of SSBs even for physically active individuals." They make no claim that they found a concrete causal link and for sure soda will hurt you if it's your only vice.

NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
>Most likely, a person consuming greater than or equal to two cans of sugar-sweetened beverages a day is also consuming other foods that are sugar-sweetened. A retrospective cohort study design like this has no way of preventing that from confounding any conclusions about the impact of just beverages if you're otherwise eating identically. In other words, "don't eat the kind of diet that people who drink two or more cans of soda per week tend to eat"? If the message here is supposed to be “if you eat sensible portions of healthy foods and lots of vegetables but you also drink two Dr Peppers a week then you’re going to have measurably worse health outcomes” then I sure want to understand that.

goda90 3y ago

Something to consider in addition to the total glucose your body eventually gets from a food is the impact on your blood sugar and insulin. How fast they change matters. Also how those carbohydrates eventually become glucose might matter too. Starch gets broken down into glucose in the mouth, stomach and intestines(with varying speed based on structure). Fructose and sucrose(which is made of fructose and glucose) can't be used directly by the body like glucose. Sucrose gets split into glucose and fructose in the intestines. Fructose gets digested in the liver. Some hypothesize that excess fructose metabolization can cause long term issues.

FooBarWidget 3y ago
Rice and bread have a higher glycemic index (~75) than sugar (65) so what does that mean? I've never heard anybody saying rice is worse than sugar.
- goda90 3y ago
  Depending on the processing and cooking. Brown rice and whole grain bread have lower. You'll find plenty of people saying to avoid white rice and bread. And the glycemic index is just one averaged measurement. Soda probably benefits from its high water content on that metric. Satiety and nutrition play a role. Soda provides no other nutrients and doesn't do much for hunger long term. A person will need to consume something more, which means more overall calories. While there may be better choices, at least rice and bread provide something with the glycemic response.

ksherlock 3y ago

It could also be that high fructose corn syrup is the issue rather than sugar.

marcosdumay 3y ago

What is on the title is absurd. Somebody linked to the actual paper, that isn't open, but from the abstract: - 2 cans a week is the amount it will start to be harmful. Effect size is proportional to the extra consumption. - It's a correlation detected over a large, but very homogenous population. There is space for all kinds of spurious results. That's reason to look for other studies, not to simply dismiss this one. - What it actually finds is that exercise benefits do not interfere at all with harm from excessive sugar. You can have either combination of them. - Non-sugared beverages effects (if any) were indistinguishable from noise. (IMO, that one is very surprising.)