2 Soft Drinks A Week = Doubling risk pancreatic cancer

is it the soft drink or is it the general diet of people who drink several soft drinks regularly??

I think the high fruitise corn syrup commercials are ridicuous! same as sugar just use moderately??? how are we supposed to use moderately when it is in everything, food vitamins medicine

( My daughter grew up very allergic to corn and we had to read all labels and make from scratch)

Originally posted by research100
is it the soft drink or is it the general diet of people who drink several soft drinks regularly??

I'm pretty sure it's the soft drink. ...My daughter was 3.5 lbs when she was born (not premature - I was v. sick) - and she was always lithe and slim. ...Then, one summer she drank soft drinks for the first time (never in our house) - nothing else changed in her diet and she REALLY porked out.

Have heard it's something about the CO2 and chemicals, not just the sugar.

reply to post by soficrow


and I slammed pop after pop summer after summer year after year growing up...I have never ever been over weight. It really does come down to genetics....don't get me wrong, the stuff in pop is horrible for biological organisms in general, but some people are genetically predisposed to suffering the effects more than others.

This is why I think that exercise, and stress relief are more important than eating right. Our entire environment is toxic to some extent, including the food we eat, but unfortunately we have to eat. But make no mistake, eating is putting toxins into your body, where as exercise and stress relief are doing the opposite.

I also wonder if maybe your daughter gained so much weight because she had never had the stuff, and maybe if she had she would have built up a little bit of a tolerance to it..or...she just put on pounds for a completely different reason.

reply to post by liquidsmoke206



I think you're right - some people may be genetically pre-disposed. Or maybe she had no tolerance. But am 99% certain it was the pop.

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by soficrow

 

and I slammed pop after pop summer after summer year after year growing up...I have never ever been over weight. It really does come down to genetics....don't get me wrong, the stuff in pop is horrible for biological organisms in general, but some people are genetically predisposed to suffering the effects more than others.

Of course, genetic predispositions play a minor role. If you lack a genetic marker that makes the insulin receptors on your fat cells more resistant to insulin then you will have a tough time gaining weight. Or, if you lack a genetic marker that produces Lipoprotein Lipase (LPL), the gatekeeper for fat cells, you will likely not store fat easily.

The catch....just because you don't see the direct effects of consuming sugar doesn't mean you're not causing damage that will haunt you later down the road. Weight gain is typically the first metabolic sign.....hypertension, diabetes, heart disease and others; all of which don't give symtomatic until you've developed the disease almost fully.

This is why I think that exercise, and stress relief are more important than eating right. Our entire environment is toxic to some extent, including the food we eat, but unfortunately we have to eat. But make no mistake, eating is putting toxins into your body, where as exercise and stress relief are doing the opposite.

To an extent, yes. But diet is absolutely the number 1 proponent for good health. Most personal trainers will admit that you can workout all you want but if you don't change your diet, you likely won't see results.

-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


for the most part I agree with you, but I think genetics play more than just a minor role. I dont care what personal trainers or nutritionists say....
when i was a kid it was, stretch before yer workout, and eat lots of the bread and cereal group....
now its, don't stretch until during or after your workout and avoid so many carbs.

they even try to say antioxidants are deadly nowadays, right after they touted them as cancer fighters! ...they'll never make up their minds because they are missing one important point....genes rule everything. Kind of hard to make the nutrition game fit for everybody when we're all carrying a different set of rules...

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

 

but I think genetics play more than just a minor role.

I'll put this into perspective.

Genetics play a large role; however, the majority of individuals have the same genetic advantages/disadvantages regarding metabolism. It's one thing to say that we are all different because of our genes; it's another to say that everyone's physiology is different and, because of this fact, everyone get's fat, sick and dies because of different physiological happenstances.

Now....I know that you are a young fellow. I also know that--staying in context-- although you may not gain fat NOW from consuming soda, eventually, because of the metabolic damage, you will.

And, as I stated earlier, just because you don't see the physical, immediate effects of consuming sugar, that is no reason to believe that you aren't causing silent damage to your body that will make you age quicker, and die sooner.

I dont care what personal trainers or nutritionists say....
when i was a kid it was, stretch before yer workout, and eat lots of the bread and cereal group....
now its, don't stretch until during or after your workout and avoid so many carbs.

I pointed out, a few posts back, why we have this see-saw effect with nutritional/workout advice. But you also have to take into account the fact that you get your information from journalists. Journalists who believe correlation = causation. Hey....guess what??, before you were a kid...nobody worked out. And everyone knew that bread, cereals and carbs made you fat...

Sometimes it helps to analyze the data; search for truths throughout the historical accounts. You're a smart guy, do some digging. Don't listen to what's being told to you by nutritionists, personal trainers, doctors, health journalists and health authorities.....find out where they got there information. See if they're relying on a single study...or if they are taking into account the entirety of the history of nutritional research.

If you want direction...U2U me.

they even try to say antioxidants are deadly nowadays, right after they touted them as cancer fighters!'

Oxidation, which is how we produce energy from glucose, produces reactive oxygen species, or free radicals. Antioxidants protect your body from these free radicals. They help prevent atherosclerosis. As far as cancer....It's possible that supplementing them can counter-effect chemotherapy. They are not deadly....lol. But having too much of them may be a problem.

...they'll never make up their minds because they are missing one important point....genes rule everything. Kind of hard to make the nutrition game fit for everybody when we're all carrying a different set of rules...

Just out of curiosity....what makes you think exercise and lifestyle influnces are immune to genetic proponents?

-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

Genetics play a large role; however, the majority of individuals have the same genetic advantages/disadvantages regarding metabolism.

naturally there's a mean, but i think we're more diverse then "the experts" give us credit for. I'm not expert so I cant really back that up, but that I suspect that this is the case. For a long time they tried to say we're genetically almost the same as chimpanzees, nowadays they are finding that we actually dont have as much in common with them as previously thought....NO DUH, I could have told them that simply by looking a at a chimp.

Now....I know that you are a young fellow. I also know that--staying in context-- although you may not gain fat NOW from consuming soda, eventually, because of the metabolic damage, you will.

I'm pretty sure I'm older then you give me credit for, and I don't consume as much pop as I did as a teenager, not even close. I still drink some of the natural sodas that I mentioned on page one, but even then it's minimal. I've been hearing that I will get fat from not watching my diet for my entire life. I still eat whatever i want, in as big of portions as i want, at any hour of the day. no effect, no visible ones anyways.

And, as I stated earlier, just because you don't see the physical, immediate effects of consuming sugar, that is no reason to believe that you aren't causing silent damage to your body that will make you age quicker, and die sooner.

I wont argue with that. except to say, in my opinion it may or may not be doing silent damage based on how I'm designed.

Don't listen to what's being told to you by nutritionists, personal trainers, doctors, health journalists and health authorities.....find out where they got there information.

clearly i dont put a lot of stock in what they say, but I'm not sure checking their sources will tell me much. I would think most studies in this field would not tell me much about me, unless the study was done specifically on me and my relatives. If i want to know the effects of soft drinks on my body, then I should just watch myself i guess. this is my whole point, the study doesn't tell much about individuals, and perhaps not even much about society at all. Depends on who was the represented in the study.

Just out of curiosity....what makes you think exercise and lifestyle influnces are immune to genetic proponents?

I don't. I understand that 2 people can exercise the same amount and one will see more results than another. but, exercise seems to have beneficial effects across the board, and no one to my knowledge has ever flip flopped and said you know, maybe exercise is bad and we shouldn't be doing it.

I'm not an expert in all this stuff, but I pay enough attention to know that the experts aren't always experts either. In the end all I can really do is what seems to work for me. if drinking 10 pops a day makes me feel alright then I guess I should do it, worked when i was 14. Knowing yourself is the golden rule, I think most of these studies can only give you general information at best.

reply to post by liquidsmoke206


It's obvious you have your mind set and there's no convincing you differently, which is ok. I understand completely. So I'll just finish with saying this:

As technology progresses, so does our understanding of medical/nutritional science (including genetics). Discoveries hasten and paradigms are shifted.

Also, consider the negative effects that politics and profiteering have on nutritional information.

in my opinion it may or may not be doing silent damage based on how I'm designed.

I'm not an expert either (in that I don't have a PhD---yet), but I've devoted a generous amount of my time studying literature and the history of nutrition and fitness science.

If we're all designed differently then you can toss every biochemistry and anatomy & physiology textbook in the trash. Aside from a few genetic variations, your metabolism reacts almost identically to mine. When you drink a sugar sweetened soda your blood glucose will rise and insulin will be released to lower it. Sugar and insulin cause silent damage in the form of inflammation, oxidative stress, hormone resistance, atheroslerosis, glycation....and on...and on.

And you can bet that consuming large amounts of fructose will have the same effect that alcohol has on your liver. You don't see or feel these things because they are chronic, degenerative diseases that are internally located and are--unless you're doing bloodwork at a young age--undetectable.

The frequency at which you consume these products and your genetics will determine when you'll begin to see the physical manifestations of these metabolic diseases and how severe they will be.

Trust me, I understand why you think they've got it all wrong...or can't make up their minds. I was the same way. Remember when eggs were good, then bad, then egg whites only, and now whole eggs are good again?

www.phdcomics.com...

That link accurately describes how twisted studies get before you hear about them in the news. The biggest mistake? Journalists confusing correlation with causation.

-Dev



[edit on 10-2-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Well thanks ModernAcademia for telling me I am screwed

I drink a few sodas a day, plus spring water. Like another poster though I never gain weight, I eat anything I want drink whatever I want.

But now I guess my pancreas hates me. Here I thought I was doing something good by quitting smoking 4 years ago. Oh well guess I have to die of something.

Raist

I used to drink so many fizzy drinks...
I'm talking 24 cans of coke a day and if it weren't coke it was energy drinks.

Lucky i've stopped drinking them as much . I still smoke and drink whiskey but i don't mix the whiskey with anything.

These statistics are quite scary i just hope i haven't done any irriversable damage.

I think that those of us who drink diet drinks are fairly safe. From the article in the OP:

They asked all participants about food intake, including sodas and juices. Mueller says the researchers didn't ask specifically about diet soda consumption, but that most of the soda drunk was regular or sweetened.

In Singapore at that time, Mueller says, there was very little intake of diet soda.

Why the link with sugary sodas? Mueller says they are not certain. "What we believe is the sugar in the soft drinks is increasing the insulin level in the body, which we think contributes to pancreatic cancer cell growth. That increase in insulin is what may be leading to the development of the cancer."

On a side note, my brother was diagnosed with Type 1 juvenile diabetes about 20 years ago. The Dr. way back then said that my brother's excessive consumption of non-diet soft drinks played a major contribution in his contraction of the disease. So, it's no surprise to see studies correlating pancreatic cancer to them as well.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Aggie Man]

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I think that those of us who drink diet drinks are fairly safe.

I wouldn't count on it. Assuming soda does elevate pancreatic cancer the cause could be a number of things, Excess Co2, phosphoric acid, Coloring agents, flavoring agents etc. Diet sodas also contain sugar substitutes that i wouldn't necessarily rule out on causing additional problems.

A sourdough baker in my area used corn syrup to try to start a culture, It took 5 days before the bacteria were able to adapt and start fermenting the corn syrup. We don't have 5 days in our digestive system

It's not just the sugars. It's the polluted water , the poison plastics and Aluminum. If they used distilled water, glass bottles and Xylitol or maple syrup, it would be alot healthier.

reply to post by Sargoth


Ummmm...No! It's primarily the sugars. And it's secondarily the sugars.

More specifically, it's primarily the fructose and it's secondarily the glucose. There really is no other way of getting around it. The metabolic effects of these two sugars combined (sucrose) are ridiculously at fault.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

I have cut down a hell of a lot on fizzy drinks, but still consume atleast 2 a day. That's a massive improvement though so i'm generally ok with that!

The good thing I have started doing is drinking water! I hated it at one point but now even though I still don't like it's taste or lack of, I drink around a litre a day! which is an improvement from none! I swear my skin looks a little better for it! I always took care of my face, but since I started with the water it just seems to have improved slightly!

The one thing in soda that actually is better than anything you could otherwise better take is sodium bicarbonate. Sodium bicarbonate basically naturally stretches everything in the human body. Causing surface tension pretty promotes cell repair in the body promotes healing because mitochondria become more active almost all the cells in the body start 'working'. Sodium Bicarbonate is caused by any sodium benzate being exposed to carbonation. Both are always produced but bicarbonate only by the after occurring reaction of carbonation and salt.

This is not a health supplement the main source of evidence is the cleaning of the arteries are less with someone who drinks any form of salty carbonated beverage which is anything from about 9 out of every 10 sweet carbonated soft drinks are. Most people have heart disease because of large quantities of fat but also alcohol intake(table alcohols) with combined of a soda intake of at least 24oz 710ml a day basically keeps the doctor away. diet soda works as well as well as non Carmel ones.

The acid in soda is negligible and can be counteracted if deemed necessary by taking a potassium supplement or eating one banana a day.

If you can go out on weekends and get trashed with alcohol and then go to Starbucks every day week but be afraid of 2 cans of diet soda a day?

The cause of all circulatory problems is because of too much fat intake pulmonary cholesterol not body fat even in women of any age size weight men of the same. You cant just eat something fatty and not just lay around you need to burn it off. pulmonary fat can only be metabolised through meditation the brain will break it down and generate harmless bi products with it. People dont understand you cant stop ingesting the one thing that they have always ingested salt(plant matter) and carbon(decaying meet) but just drink starbucks all day and eat crackers.

Life span would be increased by decades if soda was the only primary form of liquid intake other than water.

Originally posted by Sonata
Most people have heart disease because of large quantities of fat but also alcohol intake(table alcohols) with combined of a soda intake of at least 24oz 710ml a day basically keeps the doctor away. diet soda works as well as well as non Carmel ones.

Life span would be increased by decades if soda was the only primary form of liquid intake other than water.

You can't be serious?

Dietary fat has little to do with heart disease in most individuals. It's blood fat that causes problems. Alcohol and fructose (in sodas) metabolize in the liver nearly identically. The end result for both is increased blood lipids. Also, flooding the system with glucose (also in sodas) and spiking blood sugar often leads to Lipogenesis.

Dietary fat will spike postprandial (immediately after a meal) blood lipids and the level slowly fall back to normal. Sugars (fructose and glucose), and other carbohydrates, have little effect on postprandial blood lipids; they do, however, raise fasting blood lipids, which DOES lead to heart disease because you're talking about high levels over long periods.

If soda were a primary drink, diabetes would run rampant and lifespan would greatly depend on how well you can be kept alive while suffering from heart disease, diabetes, obesity and many other chronic diseases that are directly attributed to carbohydrate consumption.

-Dev

Originally posted by Sonata

Life span would be increased by decades if soda was the only primary form of liquid intake other than water.

Your joking right? Whats the killer liquid that's currently decreasing every ones lifespan?