Posted on 07/23/2007 3:13:48 PM PDT by HarmlessLovableFuzzball
TORONTO (CP) - For those who drink diet pops in the belief that sugar-free beverages are healthier than regular soft drinks, new research suggests they should think again.
A huge U.S. study of middle-aged adults has found that drinking more than one soft drink a day - even a sugar-free diet brand - may be associated with an elevated risk for metabolic syndrome, a cluster of factors that boosts the chance of having a heart attack or stroke and developing diabetes.
"We found that one or more sodas per day increases your risk of new-onset metabolic syndrome by about 45 per cent, and it did not seem to matter if it was regular or diet," Dr. Ramachandran Vasan, senior investigator for the Framingham Heart Study, said Monday from Boston.
"That for me is striking."
Metabolic syndrome is associated with five specific health indicators: excess abdominal fat; high blood sugar; high triglycerides; low levels of the good cholesterol HDL; and high blood pressure.
"And other than high blood pressure, the other four . . . all were associated with drinking one or more sodas per day," said Vasan, a professor of medicine at Boston University.
Having metabolic syndrome is known to double the risk of heart attack and stroke, as well as boosting the risk of diabetes.
The study included nearly 9,000 observations of middle-aged men and women over four years at three different times. The study looked at how many 355-millilitre cans of cola or other soft drinks a participant consumed each day.
The researchers found that compared to those who drank less than one can per day, subjects who downed one or more soft drinks daily had a:
-31 per cent greater risk of becoming obese (with a body mass index of 30 or more).
-30 per cent increased risk of adding on belly fat.
-25 per cent higher risk of developing high blood triglycerides or high blood sugar.
-32 per cent higher risk of having low HDL levels.
But Vasan and his colleagues, whose study was published Monday in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association, are unsure what it is about soft drinks that ratchets up the risk of metabolic syndrome.
"We really don't know," he said. "This soda consumption may be a marker for a particular dietary pattern or lifestyle. Individuals who drink one or more sodas per day tend to be people who have greater caloric intake. They tend to have more of saturated fats and trans fats in their diet, they tend to be more sedentary, they seem to have lower consumption of fibre."
"And we tried to adjust for all of these in our analysis . . . but it's very difficult to completely adjust away lifestyle."
Dr. David Jenkins, director of the Risk Factor Modification Centre at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto, said previous studies have suggested that diet pops did not have the same effects on weight and health as do naturally sweetened soft drinks.
"The unusual thing that needs comment is they (the study authors) say that the diet colas are the same as the calorically sweetened colas," said Jenkins. "So I think that is the piece that they've put into this puzzle . . . I think we need a lot more scrutiny of that."
Jenkins said he believes that high consumption of soft drinks likely goes along with eating a high-calorie diet.
"I think the disappointing thing is if you thought you were doing (yourself) a major service - which you always used to think - by taking diet drinks, this is not helping you," he said. "Before we were saying take the diet (drink) and you're OK. Now were saying: 'Watch it."'
The study also begs the question whether there is some ingredient in soft drinks - regular or diet - that may encourage metabolic syndrome.
But Dr. Arya Sharma, chair of cardiovascular obesity research at McMaster University, said there is nothing suggested by the authors of the study that would lead to that conclusion.
"One thing that they say and other people have said before is if you drink a lot of sweet things, then you are sort of conditioning yourself for that sweet taste," Sharma said Monday from Hamilton. "So people who drink diet pop may be eating other sweets, whether that comes in the form of dessert or other things, I don't know."
"It may be that people who are drinking diet pop - and we have this effect often with people who go on diets or when people go running or whatever - that you do a little bit of something that you think is good, and then you overcompensate by doing more of something that is bad."
"The idea could be because I'm drinking diet pap, I can afford to splurge on dessert."
Vasan said he cannot out-and-out recommend that people stop drinking soft drinks based on this study, because the findings are based on association, not clear cause and effect.
"The simple message is eat healthy, exercise regularly and everything should be done in moderation," he said. "If you're a regular soda drinker you should be aware that this study adds to the evidence that regular soda may be associated with metabolic consequences."
"If you're a diet soda drinker, stay tuned for additional research to confirm or refute these findings."
I have recently stopped drinking aspartame-sweetened diet colas. If definitely felt as if there was a habit-forming ingredient in them.
Or the water, caffeine, artificial coloring, artificial flavoring, or preservatives.
Did this study have a group of subjects which drank water in place of soft drinks?---No, I didn't think so.
My little experiment(not scientific by any means) did not prove that out, unless it’s some sugar elevation that would not show up on a meter.
Muawiyah — Like a lot of people, you are confusing corn syrup with high fructose corn syrup. They are NOT the same thing. HFCS is much worse for you. The main problem with it is not the corn syrup; it’s the fructose. Your body metabolizes fructose directly into fat.
HFCS also carries a ton of calories, but your body doesn’t even recognize them as such. There have also been studies that show that HFCS switches off your natural appetite control system.
It’s bad stuff.
No, I eat oat granola.
On the other hand when I eat fructose it's instantly broken down into simpler sugars which are then recombined into the type of sugar my body can use ~ which is glucose.
Fructose doesn't taste as sweet as sucrose. So, they concentate it ~ that's called high fructose corn syrup.
Any leftover sugar not needed for immediate energy requirements is quickly stuffed into fat cells by insulin.
If you live like I do, with an absolute minimum of sugar/starch input, when you need energy your liver will convert something ~ usually fat, and then when that's burned up, protein ~ into glucose or glycogin.
It's not quite as instantaneous as the other way around, but it works.
Sugar levels are readily measured.
On the other hand, I can tell you when I'm short insulin and sugar. It feels different.
Then, there's the hunger ~ the hunger of a predator who needs a surge of fats for glycogen and a chunk of protein for sugar, to live right, and I look around and notice that the squirrels do look good today, and my mouth waters.
One of the most harmful artificial ingredients ever created? Do you feel the same way about sugar (sucrose)? Because both HFCS and sugar are made up of the same two ingredients in almost identical proportions. Dangerous? Hardly.
HFCS is a substitute for sucrose. Where there was once (or would be) sucrose there is now HFCS. HFCS consumption has replaced sucrose on a nearly one-for-one basis over the past thirty years.
In many ways, diet soda is actually more harmful than regular. Sugar is bad, but aspartame is a cancer-causing ingredient that is probably worse.
Aspartame is made up of phenylalanine, an essential amino acid, aspartic acid, another common amino acid found in plant proteins, and methanol which is abundant in fruits and vegetables. How combining these ingredients could cause cancer is a mystery. Gotta be careful of what you read on the internet. There's a lot of misinformation out there.
You are incorrect. Corn syrup is glucose. Look it up.
HFCS, on the other hand, has gone through a process that makes it about half fructose and half glucose.
Again — HFCS is not beneficial, period.
Corn starch is just another variation and your body converts it to sugar too, but the sugar you can use.
Look, this stuff goes into your gullet, gets churned around, absorbed in the small intestine (and elsewhere interestingly enough), and is sped by the blood stream to the liver where its converted into human usable sugar.
If you don't use it right away for energy insulin sticks it in your fat cells.
Pre-processing has no effect on what your liver is going to do with the stuff.
If you are a Type II diabetic your best bet is to quit eating all carbohydrates and stick to the oils, fats, meats and fibrous veggies God meant you to eat.
You won't miss the other stuff.
No, I do not feel the same way about sugar (sucrose), because it is not the same substance as HFCS.
Repeat — these are different substances. You cannot assume that HFCS is nearly identical to sucrose. This would be patently incorrect.
In sucrose, the glucose and fructose are linked together at the molecular level. Making this a completely DIFFERENT SUBSTANCE than HFCS, which has both glucose and fructose but which are not linked. Saying that they are the same because each has identical portions of the same ingredients is an error in logic.
HFCS contains no sucrose.
Also, yes, HFCS did not exist until the 1970’s and thus has largely replaced sucrose as a sweetening substitute in food. And this is a tragedy.
Read up on HFCS — not just on the Internet but in medical journals. You will see that what I’ve said is correct.
As for aspartame: Just because a particular ingredient is commonly found in natural foods such as fruits and vegetables does not mean that the same ingredients are safe when extracted, processed and concentrated. There have been numerous studies pointing to this product’s dangers. The issue is still controversial, but I, personally, will not take that risk. I am quite content to drink liquids that do not contain artificial, extracted or processed sweeteners.
This is a pre-scientific belief that the more natural your foods are the better they are for you.
I don't argue with rawfood advocates because they gloss over the existence of bacteria, viruses and certain types of poisons found in many raw foods (e.g. unprocessed tapioca, uncooked tree nuts of many species, etc.)
I've already lived longer than Euell Gibbons by cooking my food.
Just quit eating and drinking anything and you can live forever.
Muawiyah — Believe what you want to believe, but as far as HFCS goes, I again respectfully suggest that you are vastly oversimplifying the effects on the body of these various — and quite different — substances. You are lumping them all into carbohydrates, or separating them into two simple groups of sugar and fiber. Then suggesting that all of these substances are processed “in your gullet” in the same manner. This is absolutely incorrect.
Corn starch is NOT the same as sugar, it is not the same as sucrose, and it is absolutely not just another variation of HFCS. Corn starch is a raw ingredient used in the creation of HFCS, but the final result is NOT analogous. They are different substances with different chemical structures.
Corn syrup is +90% glucose. There are two types of HFCS being commercialized today. One is approximately 55% fructose and 45% glucose and is used mainly in beverages. The other is 42% fructose and 58% glucose and is used mainly in baked goods, cereals and other processed foods. Sucrose (table sugar) is 50% fructose and 50% glucose.
This really doesn't matter because the fructose you consume is easily converted by the body into glucose. What's needed for immediate energy is used. The rest is converted to glycogen until the glycogen reserves are full. Then it's converted to depot fat. Your body does not metabolize fructose directly into fat.
HFCS also carries a ton of calories
Just like any other carb, HFCS offer 4 calories per gram.
...but your body doesn’t even recognize them as such
Your body doesn't recognize or metabolize glucose and fructose? What have you been reading?
There have also been studies that show that HFCS switches off your natural appetite control system.
You can find studies on the internet showing just about anything I suppose. Glucose and fructose from hydrolized sucrose has the same chemical structure as glucose and fructose from HFCS. The glycemic index of both are almost identical as are their satiety profiles.
It’s bad stuff
The only 'bad' here is your source for information.
I drink fruit juice in moderation — usually just drinking water or sometimes vegetable juice — but when I do, I try to stick to low-fructose fruit juice like nectarine, tangerine grapefruit or peach.
Think of yourself like a gigantic bumble bee but with hard bone things. You take on carbs, you convert them to a useable form, you stow them away, you call them out, you burn them.
It's all carbs.
Sorry, I try to do without them completely. You guys with the mutant genes can do a debate about which are gooder than others and badder than others. For me they are ALL bad.
I put juice right there in the same category as sweetened ice tea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.