Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 244 posts

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#191

Post by agumonkey »

klenwell wrote: post #25

When Mr. Nutter was fighting the soda tax battle, he kept a bottle of Mountain Dew and a container with 17 teaspoons of sugar — the amount in the bottle — on the table in the center of his office. It was a good “conversation piece,” he said, about the surprising number of calories in a typical soda. I think this is key. Better information and transparency is having an effect. I'm glad to hear we're approaching a poin…

Also, juice are high sugar beverages too. Don't let the fruit / nature packaging fool you.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#192

Post by baby »

caseysoftware wrote: post #57
klenwell wrote: post #25

When Mr. Nutter was fighting the soda tax battle, he kept a bottle of Mountain Dew and a container with 17 teaspoons of sugar — the amount in the bottle — on the table in the center of his office. It was a good “conversation piece,” he said, about the surprising number of calories in a typical soda. I think this is key. Better information and transparency is having an effect. I'm glad to hear we're approaching a poin…

That's why we haven't had anyone start smoking in decades.. Soda sales are down but obesity is still up, so the calories are coming from somewhere. If you believe the other common stories, we're drinking the calories. I'd wager they come from the rise of coffee-based beverages - which would not be considered soda - but I don't have data to back that up.

> That's why we haven't had anyone start smoking in decades..

Different reality in France

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#193

Post by baby »

grogenaut wrote: post #178
greggman wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another issue is size. In Europe or at least at many of the places I've been lately the sizes they have at Starbucks USA do not exist. A latte for example in Paris or Barcelona is no more than ~6oz or so, maybe less whereas Starbucks USA they start at 8oz and go up to 24oz. I have not visited a Starbucks here to see the sizes. Every coke I've ordered has come in a 8oz bottle as well unlike the unlimited refills and o…

Ugh, as an americano drinker I'd be annoyed as hell by this. I have a 52oz water cup at my desk, for me much of things is about the quantity of liquid so I dilute everything. I get my alcohol drinks heavily cut with mixers so they last longer. If drinks are small I finish them way too fast. So a tumbler of a mixed drink lasts me 8 minutes but the same drink in a pint with little ice and more mixer is more like 40 min…

Coffee in Italy, France and other places in Europe is meant to be drink in small cups. Like a shot. I've asked for Americano in France and people are always making fun of me. But I will never understand why you would drink a shot for pleasure when a drink can last way longer. So yeah totally agree with you.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#194

Post by dghughes »

caseysoftware wrote: post #104
austenallred wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be curious to see how much of the decline of "soda" is a result of the move to "energy drinks"

I was thinking about that too but since they're sugared and carbonated, I assume they're often classified as soda too? (Not 100% sure there.)

Surprisingly they're not even food as are carbonated sugary drinks aka soda/pop the FDA considers energy drinks a supplement.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#195

Post by secabeen »

Yxven wrote: post #91
kedean wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced that cereal as a product is bad. Sure things like Lucky Charms are clearly terrible for kids, but Cheerios or Honey Bunches of Oats? They are the best combination of cheap, easy, and quick that someone can get for breakfast. My biggest worry with an anti-cereal movement would be that people would just start skipping breakfast (even more than they do), leading them to consume MORE calories at lunch a…

Lucky Charms has 110 calories per 3/4ths a cup. Honey Nut Cheerios has 110 calories per 3/4ths a cup. They both have 22g of carbs of which Lucky Charms has 10g of sugar while Cheerios has 9. Don't confuse branding with health. If your cereal doesn't taste like cardboard, it's probably bad for you.

Yeah. Honey Nut Cheerios != Cheerios.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#196

Post by dghughes »

jrockway wrote: post #151
mbell wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about real fruit juice? Much healthier. Most fresh squeezed fruit juices have comparable levels of sugar to soda. They may have some extra vitamins but they are not terribly 'healthy'.

Indeed. Fruit is "healthy" because it has fiber in it. Fruit juice removes the fiber, making it basically the same thing as soda.

It doesn't have to for example if you made orange juice from an orange and didn't filter it. Eat the orange or juice it it's pretty close.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#197

Post by bootload »

mapt wrote: post #119
caseysoftware wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why we haven't had anyone start smoking in decades.. Soda sales are down but obesity is still up, so the calories are coming from somewhere. If you believe the other common stories, we're drinking the calories. I'd wager they come from the rise of coffee-based beverages - which would not be considered soda - but I don't have data to back that up.

A) If a beverage has a certain number of calories from sugar per volume, it doesn't really matter whether it's cola-flavored, orange-flavored, vanilla-flavored, tea-flavored, natural-flavored, artificially-flavored, carbonated, uncarbonated, caffeinated, or uncaffeinated. They're all functionally soft drinks, from a dietary perspective, but the graph that charts the decline in carbonated soda does not show the other…

" A person weighing 300lbs has roughly the same neurochemical hunger/stress response as a person weighing 150lbs,"

Not sure about this. Will depend on the type of (over) eater. Do they over eat because of psychology (stress reaction), do they over-eat due to some hormonal imbalance (lower gut hormone despite eating) and subject keeps eating. Then there's binge eaters. Each of these three types of over-eating have a different "neurochemical hunger/stress response" to a normal person who has eaten enough and stops. [0]

[0] BBC Food, Gabriel Weston MDBS, Truth about Fat ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dDlKI623E

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#198

Post by bootload »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #174
mapt wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A) If a beverage has a certain number of calories from sugar per volume, it doesn't really matter whether it's cola-flavored, orange-flavored, vanilla-flavored, tea-flavored, natural-flavored, artificially-flavored, carbonated, uncarbonated, caffeinated, or uncaffeinated. They're all functionally soft drinks, from a dietary perspective, but the graph that charts the decline in carbonated soda does not show the other…

With regard to B), this is well explored and is called 'GI' or 'Glycemic Index'.[1] High GI foods cause an insulin response in an effort to maintain blood glucose at 5.6 (fasting) - 11.1 mmol/l (postprandial), one of insulins roles is to cause cells to remove sugar from blood and store it as muscle and liver glycogen first then body fat. Once the sugar has been removed from general circulation the hungry feeling recu…

@TheSpiceIsLife, do you think hijacking the "Gluconeogenesis" process is what the sugar-water industry is aware of? ie: sugar hit following sugar removal.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#199

Post by unethical_ban »

hugh4 wrote: post #99
kw71 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under a socialized healthcare regime, every sick person is a problem for the whole society in that we have to pay for it. So, being careless with your health is a crime against the people. If you are in the USA, consider that you have been funding healthcare for some of the worst offenders for decades by paying taxes which fund hospitals. Now with the healthcare reforms in mind, which have itemized your contribution…

Which is precisely why some of us are opposed to socialised healthcare. Once you have it, every little decision you make becomes everyone else's business.

I completely agree. This is why I've been skeptical of socialist healthcare - your business becomes everybody's business. We MUST have a private option; a way to opt-out of public benefits for healthcare, if we are to maintain the option of freedom.

Re: The Decline of ‘Big Soda’

#200

Post by masterleep »

kw71 wrote: post #81
neverartful wrote: post #53

Like many of the posters here, I realize that much of the food and drink sold is unhealthy. On the other hand, I don't think that nanny state regulations are the answer. Plenty of unhealthy things abound (when overused): chips, candy, pizza, fast food, cookies, ice cream, video games, television, etc. Maybe some of the same marketing tactics used to sell the unhealthy things can also be used to counter them with heal…

Under a socialized healthcare regime, every sick person is a problem for the whole society in that we have to pay for it. So, being careless with your health is a crime against the people. If you are in the USA, consider that you have been funding healthcare for some of the worst offenders for decades by paying taxes which fund hospitals. Now with the healthcare reforms in mind, which have itemized your contribution…

What a terrifying mentality.
Post reply on HN