As someone who has been seriously addicted to soft drinks since my teens (I'm now 54), I can tell you that there is no question that I should cease drinking sugary soft drinks (my specific addiction is to Coca-Cola made with cane sugar and bottled in Mexico). However, there is little to no official recognition that these are highly-addictive substances.
I have tried to quit a number of times over the years. When I was 17, I had a major back surgery and was on an IV for 10 days with no food or drink. I went through extreme withdrawals that complicated my recovery. The very first thing I had upon my release from the hospital was a Coke. I succeeded on quitting Cokes for six months in my 20s, but went to the movie and, with no other options, had a Sprite. The very next day I talked myself into just one Coke and was addicted again. In my 30s, I tried again. At the time I was working for someone whose son was going through heroine addiction recovery in a treatment center. The doctor thought I, too, was an addict because of the symptoms I was presenting.
In my 40s, I worked with a pharmacist to try to create a caffeine withdrawal patch or straw. The idea ended up being used to deliver more caffeine to coffee drinkers via straws.
There are NO products available to assist those of us who are addicted and would love to abandon the addiction. This is not just a matter of self control, it's a physical and emotional addiction. It's time research was put into developing one.
@AllyMcReal
There are caffeine pills on the market. My grocery store carries a generic brand of capsule. 200 mg that can be broken in half to 100 mg. If you have a pill splitter you could make it smaller.
Point is, I was successfully able to reduce my caffeine intake in increments.
I allow myself one diet soda a day and it’s caffeine free- so I have total control of the amount going in each day, and reducing it a little more each week.
@AllyMcReal I want you to. See " obesity post. Momentum " youtube
Who wants to live a few years longer by only drinking water? Not me!
1
1. A study from a few years ago revealed there is a direct link between education/salary level and soda consumption. This should come as no surprise for Coca Cola and other hard drink manufacturers.
2. Everything in moderation. After a 50-70 mile ride in 75 degree temps I may intake 1/2 a bottle of soda for a energy and energy store replacement. Heck, I see stage winners of all major cycling competitions with a mini Coca Cola in their hands following a hard fought effort. Once again, moderation.
Never had to fight a soft drink addiction. My parents bought only Fresca or Tab. The worst tasting beverages in the world, that do nothing fro quenching your thirst.
I've always been curious if soft drink companies were in cahoots with the pharmacy industry. Some folks can drink it unaffected, but in the long run, it just makes you sick.
This is common sense
1
If this were true I would have died years ago.
8
@JH A percentage of increased risk does not equate to certainty until 100% is reached.
I'm happy for you that your body has thus far coped better than others'.
2
In this study, there was an increased risk of 1% (range 0.98-1.04) associated with consuming 1-4 sugary drinks per month. Meaning a weekly sugary drink is on a par with having a beer, an egg or a hamburger.
This information stands in sharp contrast to the thousands of hyperbolic NYT comments during the past decade on the topic of sugar. Much of this reaction stems from the "research" of low-carb gurus like Gary Taubes. You can see their evidence-free arguments repeated here almost verbatim on a daily basis.
The reasoning behind all this is a belief that there is something uniquely bad about sugar molecules. Although dietary sugars have been extensively studied, no such evidence exists.
Gary Taubes and other well-known nutrition gurus and fad diet pushers have been misinforming the public for years. And if only it were about added sugars. Potatoes, bananas, skim milk...basically anything that has more carbohydrate than fat, is evil. They are doing real damage, not only by steering people away from healthful eating patterns and confusing them about what causes weight gain, but also by eroding the public's confidence in science with their "teaching the controversy" tactics.
New York Times, you have given a platform to Taubes. It's time to revisit your promotion of his ideas, and correct the record. I won't link to the evidence that refutes his beliefs; it is too extensive to cover here, and objective fact-finding is your job.
5
There is something uniquely bad about regularly consuming large quantities of sugar, particularly when detached from fiber and other nutrients, whether it’s soda, juice, gummy bears or something similar. It makes my heart pound, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it caused high blood pressure. Research shows high refined carb consumption raises triglycerides, and it seems linked to weight gain and diabetes as well.
3
Regarding the quote from an expert that, "The optimal intake of these drinks is zero. . . . They have no health benefits.” I would have thought that the sucrose or fructose would be immediately available to the body for energy? Answers?
1
@David
Yes, the energy is quickly utilized by the body, as eli the marathoner illustrated below. So in certain circumstances, a sugary drink can be a good thing.
What the health expert probably meant is that while the drinks are not "bad" per se, the calories in the drinks provide no nutritional benefit. In the context of the U.S. diet, energy alone cannot be considered a benefit; unlike the runner faced with the proverbial wall at mile 18, we're in danger of getting too much rather than too little.
If you're going to use 200 calories of your 2000 calorie budget, spending it on an equivalent amount of nutrient-dense food is far better. In fact, it would be difficult to obtain an adequate amount of nutrients like potassium, calcium, folate and magnesium on a 1800 or 2000 calorie-diet that includes daily sugary drinks.
1
@childofsol Thanks for that coherent and thorough response. Must chuckle at the "energy alone cannot be considered a benefit" comment, though. That's one of the main reasons I eat.
1
@David
I'm going to backtrack a bit on my comment, because I agree with you about the importance of energy, and appreciate you bringing it up. Like you, it's one of the main reasons I eat; energy is the most fundamental life-sustaining component of food.
In light of recent dietary fads, it is important that people understand that we're all eating for energy, and not to fight against foods like fruit and whole grains that do that particular job - and some others - well.
Current dietary guidelines explain how meeting one's nutrition needs leaves some room for junk foods while staying within one's energy needs, and people who need more energy have a lot more leeway in that department. A little junk food is harmless. Even Jane Brody, an older woman on the lower end of the energy scale, wrote in her column that she leaves room in her diet for a few sweets while maintaining a healthy weight.
1
Substituting Diet Coke for regular Coke is just replacing bad choice, with another. Would you rather get hit by a bus or a car? According to articles like these, it would be better to get hit by a car, with the ultimate goal of not being hit by cars. This of course does not make sense, because getting hit by any vehicle is bad.
4
@Ivan: I understand that people choose not to drink diet sodas, but over the years haven't seen definitive proof that the demonization of these beverages is warranted. Please supply same.
3
If someone were trying to convince people to lay off sugar they probably wouldn't want to show them this study. A mere 7% increase in mortality for a lifetime of sugary drink consumption is nothing. In fact, it's so low it may encourage people who have given up the drinks that it's pretty safe to resume the habit.
When I was a kid, growing up in NYC, one of my favorite summertime drinks was an orange-flavored mix. I could find it in the dairy case at the supermarket every weekend when I could scrape together 25 cents. I could read and I saw it was nothing but chemicals, sugar, and water but I didn't care. It was delicious!
Now that I'm much older, I don't drink sugary things anymore, nor eat them, save for small amounts, but not because I'm afraid of sugar per se but because I just can't stand any more calories. Even the slightest overconsumption of food, whether it's a fat, protein, carb, doesn't matter, it goes straight to my belly. And, I believe that's where the real issue is, being overweight or not.
4
@Ron A -
"A mere 7 percent increased" risk for death from any cause per additional daily 12-ounce serving of sugary drinks? "Mere"? "Nothing"?
Ron A, you are not a scientist or engineer or mathematical person at all, are you?
That is equivalent to about 1 fewer year of life per sugary-drink-per-day. (Look up Meier-Kaplan curves.)
So—on average—you'll die about 3 years earlier than you would have had you not had those three daily Cokes. Might as well enjoy those Cokes (or orange juices), cause they'll eventually catch up with you...
And thanks for paying for a lot of my social security benefits, which you won't be getting!
2
I consulted with a lovely, middle-aged, seriously overweight pre-diabetic patient this week, who had just re-joined Weight Watchers.
She wanted to avoid having actual diabetes like her sisters. The principal piece of dietary advice I gave her was "don't drink your calories."
However, diet soda/drinks aren't on the menu either: the evidence is good that artificial sweeteners can change the microbiome unfavorably to those who want to lose weight, and cause insulin release, even if the drinks are sugar free.
Satiety is a key principle in culinary medicine: liquids, unless they are uber-thick and at least 600ml at once, don't cause the feeling of fullness and satisfaction. The satiety centers in the gut and the brain don't register liquid calories as satiating.
Sugary drinks should be savored as a special, occasional sweet treat/dessert, not something evil or risky or daily.
Sugar Science at UCSF has an excellent analysis and careful research about this. Our own work on teaspoons of sugar per drink people find helpful: https://drjlp.com/Coke
16
4 grams of sugar = 1 teaspoon. Read the sides of these soft drink cans and you will see how much sugar you are consuming.
3
@Paul
Does anyone know if that measurement is correct? I have also seen 2 grams of sugar/tsp and other conversions.
Which one is correct???
1
@Uno Mas. One reason that measures vary is the size of the sugar crystals. Very fine crystals can pack closely together, resulting in greater sugar density --and calories-- per teaspoon. Larger crystals (typical of "raw" sugar products, incidentally) leave more air in the teaspoon, since these crystals won't fit together as closely. Thus, fewer calories per tsp.
Note that powdered sugar "fluffs" and can therefore be less dense. It usually contains some corn starch as well, to prevent caking-- thus, less sugar per tsp (but still carbs).
1
The world would be better off if there were no sugary drinks available - why not eat some fruit - taste wonderful and very healthy.
10
Mile 19 of the 2012 New York City Marathon found me hitting the proverbial wall. I did not want to quit, but I didn'tknow how I could go on. My daughter was there and offered to walk with me. As we proceded, I said to her, "Boy do I wish I had a Coke!" She said "I have one here in my backpack." I drank some, and shortly after said "I feel great! Let's go!" I jubilantly ran all the way through Central Park to the finish line. Don't talk about my miracle beverage!
9
@eli
I had a wonderful one-off similar experience about 30 years ago. I loved it then. Since then I have probably had no more than two cans. It is just not healthy for you and it tastes too sweet. It would be great if the cook people figured out that many of us drank (note the past tense there too) the diet version because it is bitter, not sweet.
1
@eli Sugary soft drinks, often de-fizzed, have long been a go-to beverage for ultra-marathoners. Probably due to glucose plus caffeine. But what do people who can run 100 miles in a day know?
3
Soft drinks, like all the beverages made by our industry, are safe to consume as part of a balanced diet. The sugar used in our beverages is the same as sugar used in other food products. We don’t think anyone should overconsume sugar, that’s why we’re working to reduce the sugar people consume from beverages across the country. Additionally, low- and no-calorie sweeteners have been repeatedly confirmed as safe by regulatory bodies around the world.
2
@ABA Comms I find that sugar has an addictive-like component. I went off sugary food of all types for a year. I lost all desire for sweets. I wasn't tempted by the most luscious desert. Then, on my mother-in-law's 90th birthday, it seemed rude not to have at least a small piece of cake on that momentous occasion. Well, that one sliver of cake started up my sweet cravings once again. So, from my experience, I will postulate that for some people, moderation isn't an option.
7
@ABA Comms, these are all universally accepted, research based, government approved half truths that have been developed with the influence of and are happily used to convince people to try soft drinks. "The sugar used in our beverages is the same as sugar used in other food products," in other food products, the release of sugar is slowed by the food, whereas a liquid drink it does not have fiber/grain/protein/fat to slow down the release. Instead, it often has caffeine, which affects alertness, happiness and insulin and thus gives more "oomph" to the insulin roller coaster.
The problem with food in the USA, is that eating habits of Americans have been influenced by marketers, food manufacturers, half-true science, half-true media reporting and repetition, and imperfect medical teaching guidelines, that the lives of Americans are far away from what they would choose to be happy and more or less healthy.
4
@Lilla Victoria, moderation is not an option, food companies know this and have worked hard to get people to believe that moderation is a practical alternative. In fact, if you put a little bit of processed sugar in every food product in our environment, you will get every person addicted, and they know this.
1
Is freshly squeezed orange juice with no additives considered a sugary beverage?
4
@Martha B.
Yes.
10
@Martha B.
Not in this study, freshly-squeezed or otherwise.
Unlike fruit juice, SSB's are typically consumed between meals, and at a much higher total volume (calories). These drinks are also caffeinated and carbonated, which adds to their appeal; very few people would consider themselves "addicted" to sugar-water, or fruit juice.
It is true that fresh fruit is superior to juice, because it has more fiber and takes longer to consume. That doesn't make fruit juice evil; it means that fresh fruit is a better choice, especially when American diets are lacking in fiber. Oranges are a good source of potassium and folate, and juice has more because it is more contrated. Consuming one serving (of several daily servings of fruit) as a six-ounce glass of fruit juice can be part of a healthful dietary pattern for almost any adult or older child.
Parents should be aware that toddlers require multiple servings of foods that are rich in calcium, protein and fatty acids, and providing more than a few ounces of juice displaces these and other important nutrients which are critical to growth and development. Habituating young children to eating whole foods is very important as they develop lifelong eating habits and is another reason to avoid giving them fruit juice.
1
@Martha B.
Vitamin C and flavanones in addition to potassium and folate.
The conclusion of a recent analysis of fruit juice consumption in the Dutch cohort of the EPIC study:
"In conclusion, the study showed that low to moderate pure fruit juice consumption, but not consumption of eight or more glasses per week, was associated with a lower risk of CVD, CHD and stroke and fruit consumption with a lower risk of CVD. Associations with pure fruit juice consumption in participats with low and high fruit consumption did not show additional benefits for those with low fruit consumption."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/BC762A823262D074D07CD369CBB9005C/S0007114518003380a.pdf/pure_fruit_juice_and_fruit_consumption_and_the_risk_of_cardiovascular_diseases_the_epicnl_study.pdf
"Meta-studies" that crash one study's data against the data of several others aren't a sound basis for drawing conclusions.
They are an excellent way for researchers to generate ideas for further research. Getting them publicized in a popular, non-technical publication is also a good way to attract potential funding sources.
The headline "Soda Kills" is a guaranteed eyeball-catcher.
13
@Sequel -
Actually, it is "meta-analyses," not "Meta-studies," and you are incorrect on all counts.
They don't "crash" one study's data against the data of several others; rather they simply average the results of similar studies, weighted by the size and/or variability measured in each study.
And, consequently, they are a very POOR way to generate new ideas for further research or to attract potential funding sources.
If the studies are reasonably homogeneous in design and outcome, then they can actually provide a very sound basis for drawing conclusions. That is their fundamental purpose.
And, yes, the data do say that "soda kills."
2
Sugary beverages are pure garbage with no redeeming nutritional value whatsoever. They promote obesity and diabetes and don't even have the fat and protein of a candy bar, which at least offers some satiety.
30
@Pat
They are also highly addictive, and I've met people who can't break their addiction and say they won't switch to diet because of the taste.
My experience -- put up with the taste difference for a few weeks and the preference will go away or change to diet. Not that I drink soda much at all any more.
5
No doubt sugary drinks are no good for you, but the continuing conspiracy theories about big sugar, big food, big pharma ad nauseum are for some a way to blame others and demonstrate lack of self control and discipline.
9
@Iplod, self control and discipline required to not use these foods, are different for everyone. For example, if you work night shifts, you will feel a lot different about the issue. Sleep deprivation makes you cold, hungry, and causes your mind and body to literally crash and shut down unless you eat sugary foods. For real. Same is true for certain people, the obese people literally NEED the sugary foods to get from one hour to the next, or they can't go to work, socialize, plan tasks, react normally to friends and family..
2
I make an exercise drink with brewed tea, an electrolyte tablet, the juice of one lemon and a teaspoon of sugar. I drink it during and hour and a half of hard cycling. I don’t think it’s harming me.
5
Articles about the health risks linked to sugary drinks are common, along with supporting research studies and warnings by experts. But articles about the marketing and lobbying excesses of the beverage industry are harder to come by. Until those excesses are exposed and countered in the media and in government agencies, all the continuing research about unhealthy beverages and all the expert warnings will do little to reduce this public health scourge.
23
There was a recent article I read (NYT? Washington Post?) about tobacco industry advertising tactics also being used to market sugary drinks to kids.
4
@William This article on the Guardian about how the sugar industry for decades withheld research about the effects of sucrose might be of interest. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/nov/21/sugar-industry-withheld-research-effects-of-sucrose-50-years-ago-study-claims
Be interesting to see a comparison of the effect on life expectancy among sugar, cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, opiates.
17
How can you have increased risk of death of 7% if everybody dies? Could somebody please explain what that means? And why do reports use the term?
14
@Ben, the risk of dying during the time the study/studies is/are ongoing.
5
@Ben As compared to the anticipated rate of death for the cohort or to the actual rate of death among non-users in the sample for the study duration.
1
@Ben -
What they mean is a 7% increase in all-cause death (per-sugary-drink-per-day) — averaged over all ages.
For example, compare two groups of 1000 people who are exactly the same, except that one group drinks 3 Pepsis per day, while the other group drinks 3 glasses of water instead.
At age 60, say 200 of the 1000 water-drinkers are dead. Then 200 x [1 + (3 x 0.07)] = 242 of the sugary-drinkers would similarly be dead. The 42 extra (early) deaths would be attributed to the sugary beverages.
At age 80, say 800 of the 1000 water-drinkers are dead. Then 800 x (1.21) = 968 of the sugary-drinkers would be dead. Those 168 extra (early) deaths would be attributed to the sugary beverages.
The 7% per-sugary-drink is an average derived backward from the actual death-at-similar-age data actually observed in the dataset (though they rarely follow people as far as age 80...).
Note that a 7% all-cause mortality number is a HUGE number, especially considering that a lot of people drink 3 to 5 sugary drinks a day!
1