Soda, more dangerous than smoking?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Check up a few posts above. I'm a coffee maniac. But I exercise, take vitamins, don't use tobacco products, and generally eat a fairly healthy diet. Coffee's the only thing that keeps me from being obnoxiously perfect.


Besides, there's a "correlation" but as we all learned in school, correlation does not imply causality.

The caffeine effect on bone loss does not appear to apply to tea consumption. So you Brits are off the hook. For now.




posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I hate to be the fly that flopped the flim flam but come on guys...Think for one minute. First off each and everyone's health is completely different from everyone. Whats good for one of you might kill the other? Health



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
@ Tsloan

That is probably indeed true. There are far too many health "experts" out there telling us that we should or shouldn't eat and drink certain things. When we get sick,what do we do? We go and get advice from someone who is probably going to die 20 years younger than we will!! What logic is there in that?

Honestly,check the averages. The average "regular Joe" lives to be 78. What is the average lifespan of a doctor? Try 58-60. Yet, they are the ones who know what good health is?



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Both sides are to blame. The companies who develop and market this junk need to find ways to make it healthier. It is in their best interests to do so, after all, we will consume more if we live longer healthier lives. And the general public needs to learn moderation and how to take care of their own bodies, which means maintaining a balance diet and exercise. Both sides need to stop making excuses and just do what needs to be done.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
For those of you who haven't seen this video it fits right in with this line of thinking. It is short so make sure and watch the whole thing.

Todays miracle is tomorrow's poison, and visa versa

video.google.com...



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
@ Tsloan

That is probably indeed true. There are far too many health "experts" out there telling us that we should or shouldn't eat and drink certain things. When we get sick,what do we do? We go and get advice from someone who is probably going to die 20 years younger than we will!! What logic is there in that?

Honestly,check the averages. The average "regular Joe" lives to be 78. What is the average lifespan of a doctor? Try 58-60. Yet, they are the ones who know what good health is?


Well they are a victim of circumstance. They have much higher stress levels and much greater exposure to a much wider variety of diseases. That's actually not suprising at all to me.

As far as the artificial ingredients go, there is no doubt that they cause harm in at least some individuals. But just like I can chain smoke for my entire life and not get cancer, someone can eat twinkies 4 times a day and not get diabetes or have other ill effects. Genetics DOES play a large part in that.

However if you saw 6 people jump off a bridge and 2 of them died, 2 of them were injured, and the other 2 were fine what are the odds that you would jump? Taking in too much of ANYTHING (artificial or not) is like jumping off that bridge. You might die, you might get sick, you might be fine. Moderation is the only real way to be guided towards one of those latter two groups however.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
In keeping with the topic of the thread here is my response. Smoking tobacco products is far more dangerous than drinking soda.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
The aspartame in diet soda gives me a headache and a strange bumpy rash. Not hives, it doesn't itch or flare up and down in minutes. It's more like a bunch of pusless boils or pimples that pop up and take about a week to disappear. Sugary coke gives me hives. Not so good.

If I'm going to scarf a few hundred calories I want it make me full as well as be a tasty treat.

Biologically speaking it's the calories that age you - so soda's a waste of good time and money in my books. Plus it gives me hives, or a strange bumpy rash thats really unidentifiable.

[edit on 28-12-2006 by clearwater]



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I can answer this directly.

I'm currently a docent for Body Worlds
www.natureandscience.org...

www.bodyworlds.com...

Over the past two weeks (and continuing for the next six months), I am a "tour guide" for real human anatomy. There are healthy bodies in the collection and there are a number of diseased ones (I follow the pathologists around and the doctors as they come through the exhibit and I learn a LOT of stuff about the human body!)

Donor bodies come from Russia and from Eastern Germany, where smoking is part of the culture and where they do drink soda... AND where there are no pollution controls.

What I see is that even the lungs of nonsmokers are black with tar from pollution and secondhand smoke.

Lungs look like this:
www.siumed.edu...

When you slice them, instead of a red velvety appearance (the way normal lung tissue looks), you see something like this that's mostly holes, black lumps of cancer, and so forth. The holes are areas of the lungs that are destroyed:
www.biologyofhumanaging.com...

Some of the plastinates were overweight; one is "morbidly obese." None have obvious cancers (there are cancerous organs, though) -- but ALL of these Eastern Europeans have varying degrees of emphysema from smoking.

So, measuring the impact of "cancer causing stuff" versus "emphysema causing stuff" it's VERY easy to see that smoking is far, far worse.

Now... here's the kicker: You CAN lose weight and flush out some additives by going to a lower-calorie, additive free diet.

You can NOT repair lung tissue lost to smoking and pollution.

I wish I could walk you all through the exhibit and show you the things that the pathologists and physicians have pointed out to me. It's very eye opening.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Honestly,check the averages. The average "regular Joe" lives to be 78. What is the average lifespan of a doctor? Try 58-60. Yet, they are the ones who know what good health is?


No, this isn't true... and I wrote one of the first published papers on the mortality statistics of physicians (published in the Texas Journal of Epidemiology in 1983). They have the same sort of life expectancy and mortality patterns as executives. The interesting thing is that it does shorten the life span of female physicians to be the same as male physicians.

If they didn't know about health, they'd die much earlier. It's a very stressful job.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Well, I'd like to tell something about this, you might even find it a little funny. Cola can be useful for removal of rust, cleaning of mechanical parts (one mechanic used it to remove stains of burned oil from surface of engine piston) or gun barrels (especially poorly maintained ones). Works like a charm!

And, for those willing to make a little experiment: take some raw meat and put it in a glass of cola. Leave it overnight, and see what happens. Found any meat in the glass? Didn't think so.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I don't buy it.I have a hell of a sugar intake..I am addicted to the stuff. I don't have diabetes or any heart problems. You cannot live without glucose,which is sugar by the way.


It's not like you're going to develop diabetes tomorrow if you drink lots of soda today. The increase of sugar in the system, rather, the constant intake of basic sugar, makes the body create more insulin (I think? It's a function of the liver and pancreas at any rate)... Over time, the organ cannot create as much, and that is when diabetes and the like sets in.

And you're right - glucose is necessary. However, lots of foods (for example, carbohydrates) break down to glucose, or include glucose in the final break down. Thus, having a constant intake of glucose is not necessary, nor is necessarily the best way of getting it. Remember that your body does need other things besides glucose...

A quick study in biology would help to determine what the body needs to function.


In your OP, you were talking about Coca Cola. You didn't say it outright, but the use of it as a cleaner of blood is well known. Also, it's used to clean engine blocks and car parts. (It breaks up grease really well.) I've also heard that it will disintegrate a penny if left in a glass of coke overnight. However, I've never tested it.

The man-made sugars are no good. I'm curious to find out what effects these man-made sugars will have over time. In this 'anti-calorie' effort, we're forgetting that our bodies require calories. (We're also forgetting that our bodies have not yet adapted, or at least fully adapted, to having a constant and plentiful stock of food...)

Carbonation is no good. If I understood it correctly, the soda itself is an acid, which will break down the stomach lining over time. However, the carbonation is how the soda delivers the caffine into the system faster...

I've decidedly quit all soda -- not in an effort to rid myself of sugar (I drink chocolate milk), nor caffine (coffee has become my best friend!), but in an effort to get away from the carbonation. My stomach feels better, and I'm not having as many acid reflux problems.




I don't know that soda is necessarily more dangerous than smoking...

Smoking affects the mouth, esophagus and lungs. (Argue-ably the nose area, since the sense of smell is cut down drastically.) Overall, it affects the body's ability to take in oxygen.. (a killer in its own rite)

Soda affects the mouth (my teeth will show proof), the throat, the esophagus and the stomach... I'd even wager that it affects ones intestines, but I'm not sure. The acid breaks down cells (and enamel). There's also sodium in soda -- which causes water retention. (This is, of course, not mentioning the fact that the sodium that is in the majority of foods is the 'bad' salt... that's a topic for another thread.)

However, we know the long term effects of smoking... not of drinking soda. Guess we'll find out with time.. Methinks our generation are the guinea pigs for the long-term effects of soda.. I'm not looking forward to the results.

[edit on 28-12-2006 by Diseria]



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
lol when i worked at mcdonalds we'd use sprite instead of grill cleaner to clean the grills at the end of the day. Works a lot better, if that says anything.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Some of the plastinates were overweight; one is "morbidly obese." None have obvious cancers (there are cancerous organs, though) -- but ALL of these Eastern Europeans have varying degrees of emphysema from smoking.

So, measuring the impact of "cancer causing stuff" versus "emphysema causing stuff" it's VERY easy to see that smoking is far, far worse.


I cannot say that your conclusion follows from your evidence.
If these people lived in polluted areas, then you cannot say that smoking was thee only cause of their blackened lungs... Defintely a contributing factor, but not the one definitive cause.

...see, my Uncle smoked like a chimney and had fit and clean lungs. Granted, my uncle was one person, a subjective case study... But, without extensive and expensive tests that conclusively prove that the crud in my lungs is only from my smoking, and NOT from the thousands of pollutants in the air... I just don't buy it.


I'd be very interested in a study where people smoked, but lived in a non-polluted area. (nevermind the fact that smoking has been around for a *very* long time -- the key is moderation.) ((Also not mentioning the difference between smoking tobacco that has additives, and tobacco sans additives. Surely additives (whatever they are) cannot be good for us...))



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diseria

((Also not mentioning the difference between smoking tobacco that has additives, and tobacco sans additives. Surely additives (whatever they are) cannot be good for us...))



Also contaminants. ...People who grow and prepare their own tobacco and food tend to turf the stuff that's diseased - but machines can't make the distinction, and the profit motive allows contamination.

Re: tobacco contaminants. Check out the tobacco mosaic virus sometime, and track the molecular biology, especially the actin protein. Very interesting implications.

.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Like everything in life, moderation is the key.

I am a coffee addict, but I have never been addicted to sodas.

Yes is nothing more refreshing than a soda in a hot steamy day, or a beer.

But trading soda for water is a nono.

Is nothing wrong with having a bit of everything onces in while, but not every day ten times a day.


I have not used refine sugar in years and either refined salt.

Is always better to pay a littler bit more and have a better healthy life going for natural and organic sources.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
If they didn't know about health, they'd die much earlier. It's a very stressful job.


Well,I personally don't have much faith in doctors and avoid them at all cost. Hell,I haven't been to a doctor in probably sixteen years and I am 29 years old.The only doctor that I have seen was last year when I went in the Army and took my physical.

[edit on 28-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 28-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diseria
However, we know the long term effects of smoking... not of drinking soda. Guess we'll find out with time.. Methinks our generation are the guinea pigs for the long-term effects of soda.. I'm not looking forward to the results.

[edit on 28-12-2006 by Diseria]


Well,one thing we do know soda contributes to are ulcers. It's a rather accepted fact that soda has a tremendous impact on our digestive system. When I was younger, it was nothing for me to consume 6-7 20 oz. bottles of soda water. My mother finally cut me away from it.Let me tell you, I had some of the worst withdrawl symptoms that you can imagine. My stomach literally felt like it was on fire. The only thing that soothed it was a glass of milk.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
It was mentioned above about some smokers with polluted lungs, and other smokers with clean lungs, even if they smoke a lot.
Seems like something as lots of excercise can help to keep the lungs clean IMO, when I used to smoke cigarettes, I've noticed that a good bout of activity can bring up cleaning phlegm and most of contaminents get flushed out, but not only the phlegm, just getting the lungs going can help get the crud moving.
COUGH, COUGH!

That's what I think.
I wonder if the 'brown lungers' were also serious potatoe chip eatin' couch taters?

PS, I'll never de-carbonate my beer, my stomach can handle it.
BURP!

[edit on 28-12-2006 by Toadmund]



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I've recently switched my beverage intake to bottled water, first Aquafina and now Deer Park.

One thing about bottled water is that some of it is just municipal water that's been filtered and distilled. (Aquafina).

Deer Park is actually pure spring water.

Cut back on soda quite a bit, but not for any specific reason except getting tired of the sweet taste. Some people think that even with the lack of calories the sweet taste can actually stimulate insulin response. (Insulin causes calories to be sent into fat cells).

I usually go through a six-pack of 16 oz diet cola in two weeks, but have been eating cleaner lately.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join