health

Soft drinks - sugared or low-calorie - may raise the risk of early death

45 Comments

Consumption of soft drinks, whether they're sweetened with sugar or artificial sweeteners, may raise the risk of premature death, new research suggests.

In a study that followed more than 400,000 European adults for more than 16 years, the risk of premature death was heightened in those who consumed 2 or more glasses per day of soft drinks, according to the report published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

"Our results for sugar-sweetened soft drinks provide further support to limit consumption and to replace them with other healthier beverages, preferably water," said study coauthor Neil Murphy a scientist at the International Agency for Research on Cancer. "For artificially sweetened soft drinks, we now need a better understanding of the mechanisms that may underlie this association and research such as ours will hopefully stimulate these efforts."

The soft drinks themselves might not be at the root of the association, Murphy said. The new findings don't mean that soft drinks cause early death, because "in these types of studies (observational epidemiology), there are other factors which may be behind the association we observed," Murphy added. "For instance, high soft drink consumption may be a marker of overall unhealthy diet."

To take a closer look at a possible link between soft drinks and premature mortality, Murphy and his colleagues turned to the data from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, a multinational study that recruited participants from 1992 through 2000.

The study assessed diet at the start, including soft drink consumption. Participants also filled out lifestyle questionnaires that asked about factors such as educational level, smoking habits, alcohol intake and physical activity.

After excluding participants who already had conditions such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes at the study's start as well as those without data on soft drink consumption, the researchers were left with 451,743 participants, who stayed in the study for an average of 16.4 years. The average age at the start was about 51 years. During the study, 41,693 participants died.

When the researchers analyzed their data, accounting for factors that could increase the risk of death, such as body mass index and smoking, they found that participants who consumed two or more glasses of soft drinks per day were 17% more likely to die early compared to those who drank less than a single serving of soft drinks per month.

Those who consumed two or more glasses of sugar sweetened soft drinks per day were 8% more likely to die early compared to those who drank less than a glass a month and those who consumed two or more glasses of artificially sweetened soft drinks a day were 26% more likely to die prematurely compared to those who drank less than a glass per month.

The researchers allow that there were differences between the two groups of study participants that went beyond soft drink consumption.

"High soft drink consumers had higher BMI and were also more likely to be current tobacco smokers," Murphy said. "We made statistical adjustments in our analyses for BMI, smoking habits and other mortality risk factors which may have biased our results and the positive associations remained. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that these factors were influencing our findings, hence we cannot say the associations we observe are causal."

Studies like Murphy's can indeed be biased by other lifestyle factors, said Dr Bruce Y Lee an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University.

"There are only so many things you can account for when it comes to different types of factors," Lee said. "These are very complex systems."

It's possible that soft drink consumption could be a marker for some other lifestyle factor or behavior, Lee explained.

Studies like the new one "are helpful but if you really want to go after a better understanding on how eating and drinking affect health, you have to dive deeper," Lee said.

In the meantime, the best course "is to stick to natural foods with minimal processing," Lee said.

© Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

45 Comments
Login to comment

"For instance, high soft drink consumption may be a marker of overall unhealthy diet."

That's the nub right there that limits this study's usefulness. There's never been any scientific proof that artificial sweeteners harm health, despite the most extensive testing ever done on a food product.

It's really down to behavior: people who choose soft drinks tend to be less healthy to begin with than those who choose water, unsweetened tea or fresh juice.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It's really down to behavior: people who choose soft drinks tend to be less healthy to begin with than those who choose water, unsweetened tea or fresh juice.

Agree, the quote you picked from the article rings very true. I used to work with a very overweight, unfit young guy who always washed down his meat pies with Diet Coke. I'd look at this guy and his Diet Coke and think - why bother?

The only thing I'd say is that you have to watch the fresh juice. Too much fructose, not enough fibre.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I stopped drinking what I term Slow Poison maybe 15yrs ago, now I would trouble downing a full soda, maybe a couple mouthfuls at most IF I was really thirsty & that was the only option.

Do yourself a favour stop drinking soda! And yeah lots of fruit juice is just as bad, loaded with added sugr as well as the natural sweetness of fruit!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Refined sugar slowly gums up your works. Doesn't matter what its put into.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I do enjoy carbonated beverages, but avoid soft drinks other than once or twice a year. I've found some kombucha drinks are decent replacements. It tastes a little weird, but they are carbonated, very low sugar, and can still have a sweetness to them. I also enjoy infused waters, which are like carbonated flavored waters.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I stopped drinking what I term Slow Poison maybe 15yrs ago, now I would trouble downing a full soda, maybe a couple mouthfuls at most IF I was really thirsty & that was the only option.

Do yourself a favour stop drinking soda! And yeah lots of fruit juice is just as bad, loaded with added sugr as well as the natural sweetness of fruit!

yes and once you get off of it, you dont want to drink it anymore. The crap should be illegal because they contribute to diabetes. Japanese drinks are bland and tasteless, but if you want an alternative, unsweetened English tea works for me.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

An advantage of growing up poor(ish) in England in the 70s was the unavailability of Coke, Pepsi etc. and all the concomitant health problems.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

We've known this for a long time.

The only soft drink anyone should ever drink, and then only sparingly with vanilla ice cream, is root beer. And that goes for you Irish and Welsh and Scottish people too! Nyuk nyuk!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I agree with JeffLee. I suppose the same result would come out if you compared beer drinkers to people who are teetotal. "The beer drinkers were more likely to smoke and be overweight" etc. etc.

I drink the low calorie ones, unless I'm out on my bike where I drink the sugar ones for the extra energy.

If you drink sugary drinks during sports, or those gooey gel things, watch out for sugar rotting your teeth. That will happen even if you are active enough to burn off all the calories.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Totally correct. I stopped consuming sugary soft drinks (and in fact everything containing additional sugar whenever possible) a few years ago after getting smart on that subject (i.e. watching presentations by Robert Lustig on Youtube), and almost immediately my health improved massively. Lots of little ailments I had simply disappeared, I stopped getting colds, and got much less tired. Lost weight too, although that was not the purpose. This added sugar everywhere is a true health hazard.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

For 40 years I have mostly avoided the sugar drinks. Haven't had a coke/pepsi in many decades. Prefer the 100% fruit juices which still contain natural sugars.

I don't add sugar to anything except in my bread baking then I add a spoon full.

My weight still went up hitting 100 kg and five months on a diet 1500 cals/day to reduce it.

I select the beers without the added sugars and made from hops/wheat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As a teenager, I worked at McDonald's and remember this whale of a woman waddle up to the counter and order - for herself - "2 Big Macs, supersize fries, and uh.... supersize coke." (short pause) "No. Best make that a diet coke."

16 year old me was THIS CLOSE to explaining that while the change from regular cola to diet cola was commendable, she should probably just skip lunch. And dinner.

I wish I had said it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So typical for the MSM to write a story about pop and a study about its effects on health and not one mention of HFCS (high fructose corn syrup). Don’t they use this in England or Europe?

HFCS is the real killer for your waist and liver. You can buy Mexican Coke (capital necessary) at many grocery stores in the US cuz they still use real sugar.

Invalid CSRF

0 ( +1 / -1 )

zichi:

Prefer the 100% fruit juices which still contain natural sugars.

You should skip the fruit juices too. Drink water or tea, and eat some fruit instead. Think about this way: Fruit juice is just the sugar contained in fruit minus all the things that make a fruit a good thing; the fibers, the solid material. Fundamentally, you are drinking sugar water. Might as well have a Fanta...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

WilliB 

zichi:

Prefer the 100% fruit juices which still contain natural sugars.

You should skip the fruit juices too. Drink water or tea, and eat some fruit instead. Think about this way: Fruit juice is just the sugar contained in fruit minus all the things that make a fruit a good thing; the fibers, the solid material. Fundamentally, you are drinking sugar water. Might as well have a Fanta...

Most days I do drinking just water, tea and eat fruit but sometimes a glass of orange juice, grape juice or apple juice is also nice. What's Fanta?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

How do studies of this size with no real scientific merit get funding?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

My weight still went up hitting 100 kg and five months on a diet 1500 cals/day to reduce it.

I select the beers without the added sugars and made from hops/wheat.

its easy to loose weight. dont eat at night and run before you go to bed. instead of a 1500 Kcal diet, go to a 800 one. big breakfast, nice lunch, glass of non fat milk before bed. doesnt matter if you eat sugar or not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

its easy to loose weight. dont eat at night and run before you go to bed. instead of a 1500 Kcal diet, go to a 800 one. big breakfast, nice lunch, glass of non fat milk before bed. doesnt matter if you eat sugar or not.

That sounds a bit like the standard advice which has proven wrong. You might want want to watch a lecture by Robert Lustig to learn why not all calories are the same, and why yes, sugar matters. A lot.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That sounds a bit like the standard advice which has proven wrong. You might want want to watch a lecture by Robert Lustig to learn why not all calories are the same

Well, you're kind of mixing up two things here.

The advice to exercise before going to bed will work, as it will burn off any excess energy before sleep, rather than putting it on as stored energy (aka fat). This will prevent getting fatter.

Cutting one's calories also will lead to weight loss. However, the poster recommended a daily calorie intake of less than 1000 calories, which can put the body into starvation mode, and it will actually fight against losing weight, and do its best to hold on to whatever it has. So that was not great info.

While all calories are not the same, the fact is that if you are eating a calorie deficient diet, and exercising, it's almost impossible that you won't lose weight. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions. The differences in how calories work will affect the degree to which you gain/lose weight, and the way in which you gain/lose it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

strangerland:

Cutting one's calories also will lead to weight loss.

It seems you missed the point that I made, namely that this "a calorie is a calorie" meme has turned out terribly bad for Western populations of the last few decades. A calorie is NOT a calorie. Fundamentally, a calorie from sugar and sugar-like substances is bad. A calorie from fat or protein is not. So, blind calorie counting is meaningless. In short, eat fat and watch how you lose weight. Do your own homework to find out why I say this, the readers forum is a not a place for long lectures.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It seems you missed the point that I made, namely that this "a calorie is a calorie" meme has turned out terribly bad for Western populations of the last few decades.

Well you’re just repeating the newest meme that’s all. You obviously missed the point that I was making that while all calories are not the same, that still doesn’t change the facts that I if you are eating a calorie deficient diet, and exercising, it's almost impossible that you won't lose weight. The type of calorie doesn’t have change that, regardless of the meme.

Do your own homework to find out why I say this, 

I’ve got a lifetime of training. I was a competition body builder in my 20s, and regular exercise has been a part of my entire life. I get up at 4:30am five days a week to exercise. I’m as knowledgeable on nutrition as anyone - it’s something I have and do spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

t that I was making that while all calories are not the same ....(snip)..., the type of calorie doesn’t have change that

Got to love contradiction in terms.

if you are eating a calorie deficient diet, and exercising, it's almost impossible that you won't lose weight.

Starvation victims are slim, yes. However you are still not addressing the issue that a calorie does not equal a calorie, hence counting calories is pointless. Clearly we are talking past each other here.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I was a competition body builder in my 20s, and regular exercise has been a part of my entire life. I get up at 4:30am five days a week to exercise.

....and I went from 95 kg to 75 kg in a pretty short time without any exercise or changes in lifestyle after cutting out sugar and sugar-like stuff. No weight-lifting, no skipping dinner, no calorie-counting, and most certainly no even runs or any other runs (I hate running). And losing weight was not even the purpose; I was just thinking about general health.

Just saying...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Starvation victims are slim, yes.

Whose talking starvation victims? I'm talking about a calorie deficit - you do know what that means, right? It's when you are burning less calories than you are taking in. This doesn't mean starvation, it's a technical term.

However you are still not addressing the issue that a calorie does not equal a calorie, hence counting calories is pointless.

No, counting calories is not pointless. This is a pretty ridiculous assertion. And I did address your point, as I said, the differences in how calories work will affect the degree to which you gain/lose weight, and the way in which you gain/lose it.

....and I went from 95 kg to 75 kg in a pretty short time without any exercise or changes in lifestyle after cutting out sugar and sugar-like stuff. No weight-lifting, no skipping dinner, no calorie-counting, and most certainly no even runs or any other runs (I hate running).

Of course - 80% of body weight is diet. Only 20% is fitness. That's why some people - like sumo wrestlers - can be extremely powerful and fit even, while still being fat.

The thing is, you're one of those people who lost weight, and think you have seen the light. And congratulations, it's always good to get more healthy.

But I've seen people like you dozens of times over the years, who learn something new, lose some weight, think they've seen the light... then gain all the weight right back. Hopefully that's not you, but if it does end up happening, don't get discouraged, just try again.

The fact is, losing weight, as your comment would seem to indicate you've realized, is more a matter of changing your lifestyle - making healthier food choices, and getting regular exercise, than it is a fad diet. For example, the keto diet is the big diet of the past few years. Go talk to 100 guys who have gone on it - most lost weight. 80% gained it back, because it's unsustainable as a lifestyle, it's a temporary diet. Then when people get off it, the rebound kicks in.

The fact is, there are no easy fixes.

Clearly we are talking past each other here.

No, we're not. You're trying to tell me about a subject that I've spent almost thirty years focusing on. While you're correct that a calorie is not a calorie, the conclusions you've made based on that are incorrect.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Strangerland:

The fact is, losing weight, as your comment would seem to indicate you've realized, is more a matter of changing your lifestyle - making healthier food choices, and getting regular exercise, than it is a fad diet.

Cutting out sugars is not a "diet" or a "fad". It is a simple and obvious choice that I wish had learned about many years earlier.

For example, the keto diet

I am agnostic about diets. Obviously there are so many around, they can not all be true.

The fact is, there are no easy fixes.

Fixes for what? For the countless problems caused by sugar consumption? Yes, there is one. Try to think what it is.

No, we're not. You're trying to tell me about a subject that I've spent almost thirty years focusing on.

As Robert Lustig points out, most of the things scientists and nutrition pundits have been lecturing us about, such as food pyramids, calories being equal, and calorie counting, have turned out to be wrong. So your pulling rank with your years of study is a bit like someone bragging he studie astrolology for 30 years...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Cutting out sugars is not a "diet" or a "fad".

Um yeah, that's what I said:

losing weight... is more a matter of changing your lifestyle - making healthier food choices, and getting regular exercise, than it is a fad diet.

.

It is a simple and obvious choice that I wish had learned about many years earlier.

Good on you.

Fixes for what? For the countless problems caused by sugar consumption? Yes, there is one. Try to think what it is.

If it was easy to get off sugar, then why is everyone on it?

The fact is, sugar is in pretty much everything processed, and it's everywhere.

Just like any addiction, it's easy enough to get off if you're determined. But, it's not easy to become determined enough to reach that point, and even worse, it's hard to keep that up indefinitely, and the majority of people end up sliding.

I know this whole weight loss thing is new to you, and I commend you on it. But what you have to realize is that I've known many, many people over the years who speak exactly as you are, and it usually takes them a number of up-down weight swings before they ever really get it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

As Robert Lustig points out, most of the things scientists and nutrition pundits have been lecturing us about, such as food pyramids, calories being equal, and calorie counting, have turned out to be wrong.

Yeah, I preach the exact same thing when people tell me about nutrition ideas I was talking about 30 years ago. It's why I keep up on top of the newest nutrition studies regularly, and is why I usually can tell a trend from an actual beneficial finding as these things are found. I've been watching the cycles for 30 years.

You've come into them in the past year or so. And your proselytizing to me as if you're telling me something I don't know. Then you're making incorrect conclusions, about something I DO know

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The fact is, sugar is in pretty much everything processed, and it's everywhere.

Sadly true. But eliminating it where I have the choice (such as refusing soft drinks and packaged food products) has made a gigantic difference to me, and I am sure it would to everybody.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sugar actually isn't bad for you. If you are eating fruits with natural sugars, you can pretty much eat as much as you want, as being bound to the fibers in the fruit, your body processes it better than when the sugar is free (fruit juices) or added (processed sugar). Even processed sugar is fine if you eat it at healthy amounts - I have a desert to which I abandon all caring, once a week. Some weeks I'll get the most down and dirty chocolate covered chocolate covered sugar. I can do this, because I keep my sugar intake to moderate levels, and with my active life style, I'm essentially always burning calories at a higher rate, due to starting the day with exercise.

The problem isn't sugar in and of itself, it's that sugar is in pretty much everything processed, so most people are eating way more than is healthy.

But if you are a healthy person, burning 3000 calories in a work out, you can go drink a can of coca-cola right afterwards, following it up with a donut, and that sugar is going to go right through you.

The key is balance, moderation, living a healthy lifestyle, and front-loading yourself with lots of healthy food and exercise before ever even thinking about touching the crap.

When you start getting into hobbies where you want to cut your body fat to anything below 15%, thats when you need to start counting calories of everything you eat. Simply being active and eating healthy won't get you there. You need to start bucking down, and getting used to being a little hungry a lot of the time, without a lot of entertaining foods. This has always been the dance for me - look like I want, with a bored mouth, or eat well, but without the lean cut look I like.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Even processed sugar is fine if you eat it at healthy amounts

I recommend you watch a lecture by Robert Lustig, who is basically all of his time now correcting wrong dogma.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I recommend you watch a lecture by Robert Lustig, who is basically all of his time now correcting wrong dogma.

If you have an argument to show that processed sugar at healthy amounts is bad, then I'd like to hear it.

But if we're going to put up things people should listen to, here's an interesting debate by two people who feel differently, but are both much more knowledgable than you or I. While their debate is on the keto diet overall, they delve into a lot of the issues you are talking about: https://jrelibrary.com/1176-dom-dagostino-dr-layne-norton/

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Strangeland:

If you have an argument to show that processed sugar at healthy amounts is bad, then I'd like to hear it.

There is no "healthy amount" for processed sugars, so that rethorical claim is meaningless. But it is probably impossible to change minds on a readers forum, so I will leave it at that.

If you do want to expand your box, go to Youtube and look for "Is a calorie a calorie + Robert Lustig".

Again, I became healthy after watching this and similar lectures and acting on it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There is no "healthy amount" for processed sugars

There is no healthy amount of many things we enjoy eating and drinking (and for some people, smoking). Doesn't mean we shouldn't enjoy them sometimes if we want. It's overdoing it that gets people into trouble.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

commanteer:

Doesn't mean we shouldn't enjoy them sometimes if we want

One interesting thing I found once I quit sugar is that I actually don´t like it any more. I now find things like commercial soft drinks or so-called fruit yoghurt disgustingly sweet, to the point I can hardly tolerate them. It is amazing how your body changes once you get out of this industry-driven sugar addiction. You might want to try if you haven't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am years off heavy sugar stuff - except chocolate, which I won't give up. Soft drinks, processed juices... no desire for those.

The same works for salt, as most processed foods have shockingly high levels of salt in them. Cut down, and you find yourself need much less, and you discover what real foods actually taste like.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no "healthy amount" for processed sugars, so that rethorical claim is meaningless. 

Fair enough. I phrased it poorly. I should have said Even processed sugar is fine if you don’t eat it at unhealthy amounts.

As I said, if you’re burning thousands of calories a day working out, and you drink a can of coke, you are not going to gain weight from it, and it’s not going to be bad for you. If you sit in front of a computer all day and drink half a can of coke, it’s not going to be good for you.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

and you drink a can of coke, you are not going to gain weight from it, and it’s not going to be bad for you

It is going to be bad for you, even if you dont gain weight from it. But were going in circles here, so I will stop.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Well no, it won’t. That’s the point. I’ve seen this dozens of times over the year. Someone learns a new way to lose width. ‘Cut out carbs’, ‘switch to keto’, ‘eliminate sugar’, then you proselytize as if there is no way of life other than this new piece of information you’ve discovered.

Again, this is something I’ve been studying and living for nearly 30 years.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Someone learns a new way to lose width

I don´t care about losing width. (Or weight, which I assume you meant.) Losing weight was just a surpring side effect. I was talking about the health effects of eating poison.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's irrelevant. The point is that I've seen people like you come along dozens of times over the years. I applaud you/them, and it's always nice to see someone take care of their health.

But damn they are annoying when they speak of the truth they've found, as if there is no other way than this magic thing they've discovered.

And sugar, again, is not poison. It's in fruits and vegetables. Our body produces sugars when we process carbs. For that matte, sugar is essential to your body to survive.

Someone in the midst of a hypoglycemic attack needs sugar.

Sugar is not poison. If you drink too much water, you will die. Is water a poison?

The fact is, sugar in and of itself is fine, when eaten in moderation. The problem with our society is that sugar is in everything processed, not that sugar exists in the first place.

Read this: https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/sugar-facts-scientific

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If anybody is still following this tit-for-tat here, I recommend to go to youtube and look for "Is a Calorie a Calorie? Processed food, experiment gone wrong". Robert Lustig addresses all of Strangerlands talking points (almost exactly point by point....). He also gets into how commercial and politicial interests combined to promote the misinformation.

As for me, the results of quitting sugar have been instant and dramatic. Without any bodybuilding, running, or other lifestyle changes. So I leave that there.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That sounds a bit like the standard advice which has proven wrong. You might want want to watch a lecture by Robert Lustig to learn why not all calories are the same, and why yes, sugar matters. A lot.

I lost 30 kg doing it, so I think it works. its simple, you either exercise like crazy everyday and burn more than you eat, or you dont eat. went from 100 kg down to 65. now stable at 72. If I eat too much, I will burn it off on a 40 minute session full speed on the treadmill....1200 Kcal burn.

fasting does the body good also, and seems to bring the glucose # down

I see Americans these days, who arrive in Japan, and its unbelievable how big these people are, like they have no shame.

These people are blood sugar krispy kreme sugar glaze, they must consume like 5000 calories + a day. Truly disgusting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I lost 30 kg doing it, so I think it works

To quote Bill Clinton, what is the meaning of "it"? What did you do, and what works?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

its simple, you either exercise like crazy everyday and burn more than you eat, or you dont eat.

There are a few misconceptions here:

1) It's not simple. If it was, there would be very few fat people. The concept may be simple, but following through with it, for the rest of your life, is very difficult.

2) It's very difficult to exercise your way to losing weight. Losing weight is roughly 4/5 diet, 1/5 exercise. You will eventually hit a (non-skinny) plateau if you are depending upon exercise alone.

3) You don't have to 'not eat' to lose weight. That's a common misconception. This is where the idea of 'a calorie does not equal a calorie' comes in. First, it takes more energy to burn a gram of proteins than it does carbohydrates. So when you eat proteins, your body literally uses more energy, just to digest your food. It also takes longer to digest those proteins, leaving you feeling fuller longer. Carbohydrates are converted to sugars, usually quite quickly, leaving the person with an insulin spike, and more likely to eat again. Eating sugars also makes one hungry sooner.

I've been on weight-loss muscle-up diets where I've had a hard time eating all the food I had scheduled for the day. And I was still losing weight. The food I was eating was low calorie, high fiber, high protein, low carbohydrate, and the volume was more than I enjoyed.

The point being you don't have to stop eating to lose weight. That's outdated thinking. You just have to be targeted with what you eat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is where the idea of 'a calorie does not equal a calorie' comes in. First, it takes more energy to burn a gram of proteins than it does carbohydrates.

It is just that. I.e. sugar gets metabolized in a completely different way than protein and fat, with completely different results for body.

The idea that 100 getting calories from drinking Coca Cola is is the same as getting 100 calories from eating carrots is so ludicrious that it should be rejected right off the bat, yet that is what the industry sponsored traditional science was telling people for a long time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites