Deaths Caused by Smoking, Salt and Sugary Beverages

I would like to draw attention to the lastest health scares:


More fatal food: Salty diets leading to 2.3M deaths each year

www.ctvnews.ca...

They concluded nearly 1 million of the deaths they attributed to excess salt in peoples’ diets came prematurely – meaning in those younger than 69 years. They also found:
60 per cent of the deaths occurred in men,
40 per cent were in women.
Heart attacks caused 42 per cent of the deaths;
strokes caused 41 per cent;

The remainder resulted from other types of cardiovascular disease. 84 per cent of the deaths due to too much sodium were in low and middle-income countries.

The Salt Institute objects to the study, calling it misleading and the "latest example of statistical abuse that distorts the health debate." They note that the researchers didn’t track actual deaths; they simply used a statistical model to estimate the deaths – a model that the institute calls “highly flawed.” “The fact that the authors of this study and the American Heart Association chose to represent this shoddy modeling exercise as evidence of authentic cardiovascular mortality figures reveals an agenda far more rooted in sensationalist politics than in science,” the group said in a statement to CTV News. "This latest statistical study is not rooted in reality, but is based upon the small, potential reductions in blood pressure that may be experienced by some individuals if they cut out three-quarters of their salt -- a challenge repeatedly shown to be impossible everywhere in the world."

So this is exactly how they do it. The find a small study showing an insignificant increase in cardio vascular disease associated with salt intake. Then despite all the studies showing that there is no association between cardiac disease and salt, they do a computer model to estimate the theoretical number of deaths and pronounce that salt intake above their specified numbers CAUSES heart attacks.

Here is another press release of computer modeling conducted by the same university (Harvard) related to sugary beverages.

Sugary drinks linked to staggering 180,000 deaths each year: study

Sugary drinks linked to staggering 180,000 deaths each year: study

Never mind that in a world population of almost 7 billion people, 180,000 deaths per year is insignificant and irrelvent:

ask.yahoo.com...

According to the CIA World Factbook, as of July, 2005, there were approximately 6,446,131,400 people on the planet, and the death rate was approximately 8.78 deaths per 1,000 people a year. According to our nifty desktop calculator, that works out to roughly 56,597,034 people leaving us every year. That's about a 155,000 a day.

(according to my calculation, 180,000 deaths per year by sugary beverages amounts to 0.32 % of all deaths)

So based on theoretical deaths accounting for 0.32 % of all deaths world wide and that those deaths most likely occurred in old age, we need legislation! AND WE NEED IT NOW. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! Give us money and we will sue the food companies and impose taxes.

and that is exactly how the smeared tobacco to the point where people now think that second hand tobacco smoke is more lethal and more toxic than sarin gas and managed to make themselves rich in the process.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Using their logic. I'll predict breathing for long extended periods of time, years and years of breathing, will produce 100% fatality rates for all humans.

We must ban breathing....it's harmful to everyone.....

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

All, I know on this one, personally, is that my body tends to crave what it needs. I can be extremely anemic, and I crave liver (normally I hate liver) I can crave fruits and vegetables too. How did "some" people come to crave what is bad for them?

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I'm waiting for the studies that prove that using vegetable oils, GMOs, HFCS and highly processed foods cause irreparable harm and illness and premature death in humans.....

Of course, the USDA, big pharma and Monsanto and its ilk won't allow those to go mainstream

According to the Centre for Disease Control:

www.world-heart-federation.org...

Nearly 6 million people die from tobacco use or exposure to secondhand smoke, accounting for 6 per cent of female and 12 per cent of male deaths worldwide, every year. By 2030 tobacco-related deaths are projected to increase to more than 8 million deaths a year.1 Smoking is, however, avoidable and advancing a tobacco-free world is a key strategic priority for the World Heart Federation.

But with 56,597,034 deaths per year world wide, my calculator shows that this only accounts for 1 % of deaths per year. Again, this is usually in old people who likely would die of old age soon anyway!

And I remind everyone of this summary:

Theoretical Death by Salt: 2.3 million = 3.86 % of deaths
Theoretical Death by Sugar: 180,000 = 0.3 % of deaths
Theoretical Death by tobacco: 6 million = 10 %

All of these are only theoretical deaths, not one single death can be determined to have been CAUSED by anything. A heart attack caused by genetics looks exactly the same as a heart attack (or lung cancer) caused by salt, sugar or tobacco.

So we are spending billions upon billions of dollars a year, taxing people to death and proposing even more taxes to support "education" of the public on these matters (with the lion's share going to government revenues.

Tired of Control Freaks

Since the exact same modelling was used to calculate tobacco deaths, if you don't believe the theoretical deaths associated with salt and sugar, how can you possibly believe tobacco deaths.

I wonder how long it will be before they stop using the words "linked to", "associated with" in relation to salt and sugar and these deaths become "actual" deaths CAUSED by salt and sugar?

Hard to win law suits against corporations unless you can use the word "CAUSED"

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by StarsInDust


How do you prove that something is "bad" for anyone? How do you know what is "good" for someone?

who defines "bad" and "good"?

Salt, Sugar and Tobacco all of benefits you know!

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Actually, in moderation most things aren't bad for you.

OF the three, however, I think sugar is the most evil.
Sugar feeds bad cells....
I'm sure you can find articles saying sugar isn't evil......but then you can have folks saying just about anything if you look hard enough....

www.healingdaily.com...

In the last 20 years, we have increased sugar consumption in the U.S. 26 pounds to 135 lbs. of sugar per person per year! Prior to the turn of this century (1887-1890), the average consumption was only 5 lbs. per person per year! Cardiovascular disease and cancer was virtually unknown in the early 1900's.
...

Here is a list of ways sugar can affect your health:

Sugar can suppress the immune system.
Sugar can upset the body's mineral balance.
Sugar can contribute to hyperactivity, anxiety, depression, concentration difficulties, and crankiness in children.
Sugar can produce a significant rise in triglycerides.
Sugar can cause drowsiness and decreased activity in children.
Sugar can reduce helpful high density cholesterol (HDLs).
Sugar can promote an elevation of harmful cholesterol (LDLs).
Sugar can cause hypoglycemia.
Sugar contributes to a weakened defense against bacterial infection.
Sugar can cause kidney damage.

The list goes on and on.......

Liquid H2O is the sine qua non of life. Making up about 66 percent of the human body, water runs through the blood, inhabits the cells, and lurks in the spaces between. At every moment water escapes the body through sweat, urination, defecation or exhaled breath, among other routes. Replacing these lost stores is essential but rehydration can be overdone. There is such a thing as a fatal water overdose.

www.scientificamerican.com...

When is there going to be a law passed to ban water? People die every year from water intoxication. We, as a culture, will never evolve if we remain mired in the backwards evolutionary cycle of drinking water.

I hope I can see a day when our heroic lawmakers instill a universal water ban. If you are against this measure, then I will have to assume you are for people dying and are sick and evil.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

Thanks for the thread, OP.

Yes, statistics are great, aren't they? They can be used to "prove" just about anything if the people who have a certain agenda try hard enough. The trouble is, so often people will just take the "study" at its word because after all, it was done by "experts", without even considering what agenda the "experts" might have or even who might be funding them.

My grandfather lived to be nearly 96 years old (and his grandpa was 102) and his philosophy was "everything in moderation". He didn't need any "studies" to tell him what to eat or how much, he used his common sense and it served him very well.

I've followed his lead and I bet you do the same. We just use our common sense. Okay, the saying is that it ain't so common no more, but I think that if people are given the chance to think and makes their own choices, most will make the right ones most of the time. Leastways I'd hope so.

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


Don't Tread On Me

Sugar (and I know that you are imagining mounds of white crystalline powder) are the basic building block of all food. Sugar is carbohydrates and a healthy diet generally consist of at least 50 % Carbs.

There is sugar in everything but meat and fats. Veggies can had quite a bit of sugar! Fruits are huge in sugar.

Please don't bother telling me that white sugar is different. Its not. Its all carbs and its all good for you.

Some people have hyperactive metabolisms and need more sugar to maintain themselves. Some people have slow metabolisms and require less sugar to maintain themselves.

Its all food my friend and before you go off on the "obesity" crisis...

healthland.time.com...

Now I don't believe this study anymore than I believe the other "health" studies but there is always two sides to every story.

The fact is that "scientists" haven't got a clue anymore than other people and will produce studies that say whatever the person paying them want it to day.

So maybe people should just mind their own business and leave the intimate minutia of other peoples lives out of the government's hands.

Tired of control freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I am not particularly interested in starting a discussion of the merits of taxing sugar, salt or tobacco or of the other aspects of the anti-everything crowd.

What I am trying to show here is how politicized epidimiology has become?

I am shocked at the way they try to mislead people. Make the numbers as large as you can. Repeat, Repeat, Repeat and pretty soon people are assuming that by "associated with" and "linked to", scientists are really saying CAUSES and that the deaths being spoken of are real people and there are real bodies lying in the streets.

The larger the number, the more people can be fooled by this method.

Isn't anyone else shocked but me?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

It doesn't really shock me any more, because I've seen it go on for years now. It just frustrates me.

This is just their modus operandi and frankly, it stinks. They don't see any need to really prove anything, just create "associations" between whatever-it-is they want to demonize (for whatever reason) and some medical conditions or statistics on mortality, and then present it as a fait accompli.

Nearly all the time, there's an agenda behind it but the good old public rarely gets an inkling into that. They just get "associations" between stats offered up as some kind of justification for advancing whatever the given agenda happens to be.

EDIT: and yes, the political aspect you mentioned is the worst thing about it all.

If you follow a health and fitness regimen and pay attention to your diet, you would intuitively know that excessive salt and sugar are bad for you. Processed foods contain WAY too much of both, and don't get me started on the garbage being served up in fast food joints.

Studies like this are peer reviewed and go through a strict scientific process before drawing their conclusions, so I wouldn't dismiss it as some arbitrary ranting. The fact is Big Agriculture would love to keep this type of information out of the news, so they can keep pumping out the cheaper, more profitable, processed junk.

reply to post by JustMike


I am with you buddy

Based on this kind of shoddy (what ever it is, I can't call it science) we are living in fear fear and nothing more than fear.

We are the longest lived healthiest generation in the whole history of the world and yet...

we fear the white smoke from the burning of 19 grams of dried leaves,
we fear our food
we fear the air we breathe
we fear the energy we use will destroy the earth
we fear the environment is dying (what hubris to think we could destroy the whole planet)

We live dull gray lives devoid of any pleasure because of fear. We are robbed of our money and any pleasure that we can take in life in order to win the race to deliver the "healthiest and best preserved body to the undertaker"

Even worse is what we are doing to others:

The indignity and inhumanity of kicking senior citizens out of their homes into -50 degree weather without shelter or any consideration of their needs (in fact, two seniors of frozen to death) in order to deny them the last pleasure they may have left (smoking)

The cruelty of denying cigarettes to schizaphrenics and manic-depressives who are particularly benefited by smoking because it decreases both their symptoms and the side-effects of the drugs they need to take.

Denying smokers the right to peaceful assembly with each other, jobs or even the privacy of their own homes

Taking children into care and away from loving families because they are "too fat" Demonizing and insulting others because they don't look the way we think they should look.

Viewing our food as toxic and poisonous instead of simply enjoying it.

Maybe life was less "healthy" in the past (or maybe not) but we did use to have fun in our lives and our conversations were not all centered on our latest exercise and diet regime)

And this is what we do just because somebody creates some scary sounding numbers?//

Is like like this really worth extending?

Tired of Control

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Please!

Now you believe that you have the right to tell me what I should and shouldn't know?

Studies are peer-reviewed and can be relied on?

Remember the advice to use margarine instead of butter and the scare that saturated fats were causing heart disease?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Results from three reports of leading U.S. and European advisory committees were compared with results as they were presented in the articles referred to. Findings were put into perspective with results not included in these reports. Different lines of evidence were included in the different reports. No overlap whatsoever was found in the articles included. Most results from the scientific literature were lacking for most different lines of evidence in all reports. All three reports included the effect of saturated fat on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in the evidence linking saturated fat to cardiovascular disease, but the effect on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was systematically ignored. Both U.S. reports failed to correctly describe the results from the prospective studies. Results and conclusions about saturated fat intake in relation to cardiovascular disease, from leading advisory committees, do not reflect the available scientific literature.

The advice to avoid saturated fat was trumpeted to us over and over again for almost 40 years! How many heart attacks were caused by the fact that scientists routinely did not publish their data and open up to proper peer review?

Where are the apologies for the bad advice? Where are the law suits against public health for the deaths they caused?

Tired of Control Freaks

I knew a bloke who lived on fatty fast food, drank like a fish, smoked like a chimney, didn't exercise and is a fat slob, he's still pegging on in his 70's.

My mate lived all his life on veggie diet, never smoked, didn't drink, took regular exercise and died of cancer before he was 30.

Don't matter how you live, be it 'healthy' or unhealthy - the day you will die has already been decided by the big man up there, and you go when your number is called, even if you're 25 and lived on salads all your life.

Eat what you wanna eat, and drink what you wanna drink. God bless ya

wtf is wrong with most of the people in this thread.... Such stupidity and ignorance is truly disturbing.

I always try to keep myself calm and be more tolerant and open-minded, although such attitude is simply absurd for me.

It will never be proved that sugar or salt directly "kill" people, because they are not arsenic. They simply rise different levels in your blood - sugar changes insulin levels and salt rises blood pressure. High insuline levels cause metabolic disfunctions, which often leads to obesity, which has strong affect on your heart. Of course, at the end, what matters the most, is genetics, although a few are blessed with so good genetics that their health will not be affected by it. Most people are. Sugar and salt do not directly kill, although eating them too much causes diseases that kill.

The statistics on these areas are legit. They usually take a large test group with different people and it is extremely unlikely that most of the people in the sugary diet group have genetic heart diseases and the healthy nutrition group are always in the "luckily" blessed group.

Same is with cigarettes.80-90% of people with lung cancers are smokers. It is also simply a coincidence? Smoking also affects hemoglobine levels, rises blood pressure. Both of these are not good for heart and sooner or later heart is likely to fail if lung cancer has not killed the person yet.

The person who mentioned that sugar is just a carb, like any else, is simply talking in a matter that he/she knows nothing about and to be honest, what she says is bullsh*t. White sugar has no dietary fiber and simply gives calories without any nutrients. Sugars are made of carbohydrates, although carbohydrates are different. Their glycemic indexed are different, their fiber content is different. Foods with high-glycemic index should be eaten in moderation, as they rise the blood sugar and glucose levels, which is not healthy at all.

To sum it up, none of these things directly kill. They simply often lead to having different diseases. Even the person who uses lots of them may never die because of them and a healthy person can get a heart attack tomorrow. Although it is all genetics and at least for most people such foods are extremely bad for health if not used in moderation . It is still a proven fact, that these are not good for health for most of the people and if you do not want to play "lottery" with your life, they should be used in moderation, if at all.

reply to post by Cabin


please - go ahead and explain the "statistics" on the margarine vs butter issues?

Of course 80 % of lung cancers occur in smoking. When you define a smoker as anyone who has ever smoked 100 cigarettes in their entire lives, well, almost 80 % of the population fits that definition.

At the current time, lung cancers are occurring in life long never smokers

www.lungcancercanada.ca...

www.uptodate.com...

For 60 years, we heard only about smokers lung cancer - now all of a sudden - most new lung cancers are occuring in never-smokers or ex-smokers who quit decades ago and they are finding new causes of lung cancer.

jco.ascopubs.org...

All of a sudden, its a brand new disease.

It was happening all along but blamed on smoking!

Tired of Control Freaks

is being a health fanatic becoming its own religion it does require allot of faith to believe in it
isnt based on facts and common sense
health fanatics like to preach