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

Two conspiracy theories about cola

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 146 posts

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#51

Post by giantg2 »

tsimionescu wrote: post #41
giantg2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally agree. The secondary (and more interesting) question is whether placebo effect is applicable to infants. Based on the theory of how placebo works, it seems it might not be. It seems there are no studies on that. At least I couldn't find any.

Placebo mostly just means "good effect unrelated to intended treatment (active substance, surgical procedure etc)". That can include psychological effects of treatment (such as in pain management, depression, heart rate and blood pressure, and a handful of others). More commonly though, the placebo effect is just natural progression of the disease, errors in data collection (such as patients trying to be helpful and…

I would consider those other effects to be bias, controlled via some other mechanism like a study being double blind. For example, lab techs shouldn't even know whose sample they're testing, let alone that patient's treatment, whether they're involved in a study, or the expected outcome.

So I do agree these other effects exist, but I don't think they exist under the classification of placebo effect. It's possible one of these is at play in this study.

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#52

Post by ncmncm »

H8crilA wrote: post #23

Pretty much all sweet drinks, including natural juices, have approx 10% sugar(s) in it. Pretty cool fact that there's a universal sweet spot for sugar (pun!).

Thus, all are slow poison. Fruits in nature have enough fiber to slow absorption long enough that intestinal bacteria get most of it. Stripping necessary fiber out of food and discading it is the major task of the food industry.

Juice is wholly as bad as Coke.

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#53

Post by ncmncm »

gfosco wrote: post #3

Great piece. This starts out talking about a silly conspiracy theory, and after solving that, causes me to question a few things I have believed about sugar/hfcs/coke.

It utterly fails to note the massive public health crisis caused by fructose unmoderated by dietary fiber.

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#54

Post by smnrchrds »

arrosenberg wrote: post #35
smnrchrds wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Acids are certainly bad for teeth, but is it bad for anything else? I imagine stomach acid is more powerful than any soft drink and the drink ends up there a second after being swallowed. Is there any risk of downstream harm from food acids?

Your stomach pH is consistently monitored and buffered by the feedback mechanisms in your body. Depending on your sensitivities, infusing a large amount of acidity all at once can absolutely cause stomach issues.

Coca-colas have a pH of 2.4 to 3 [1]. Stomach acid's pH is 1.5 to 3.5 [2]. So coca-cola has acidity that is very close to that of stomach acid. Water's pH is around 7. I am no doctor, but wouldn't that suggest that drinking water will unbalance stomach's acidity worse than coca-cola will?

[1] https://www.ada.org/en/~/media/ADA/Public%20Programs/Files/J...

[2] https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/003883.htm

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#55

Post by [deleted] »

323 wrote: post #50

Fanta contains exactly as much sugar as Cola, yet it doesn't contain phosphoric acid, nor does it cause people to throw up. Q.E.D. Also, the whole premise (sugar causing people to throw up) seems a bit weird. Think about honey, cakes, ...

[deleted]

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#56

Post by kafkaIncarnate »

gfosco wrote: post #3

Great piece. This starts out talking about a silly conspiracy theory, and after solving that, causes me to question a few things I have believed about sugar/hfcs/coke.

All this information is just taking the fun out of life.

/me cracks open a Mexican Coke.

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#58

Post by jwilber »

nemo44x wrote: post #57

Is it just me or does soda taste better out of a can than out of a plastic bottle? I’ve felt this for many years and have even tested by pouring into glasses. I like the can one better. Is this just me?

As part of my undergrad statistics course on experimental design I tested this very hypothesis among about 60 students and found no significant difference in preference between cola poured from plastic, canned, or glass bottles.

Still, there’s nothing better to me than a cold glass bottle if I had to drink soda.

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#59

Post by zionic »

pirate787 wrote: post #29

For context on the Mexican cola, US cola had sugar as well until the mid 1980s. The US sugar program restricts imports and keeps the domestic price for sugar high, which created a new market for milling corn into HFCS. HFCS is uniquely an American invention that's the result of massive government subsidies for corn and price support for sugar. If the government did not intervene in American sugar markets, cola would…

And recent studies show HFCS alters the folds in your gut, lengthening them. This increased surface area significantly increases the amount of calories your intestines can extract from the same volume of food.

Re: Two conspiracy theories about cola

#60

Post by latchkey »

ncmncm wrote: post #45
latchkey wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped reading after the covid mention. [1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Faulty-...

Death is death.

Explain your reasoning for mentioning covid vs. car accident, cancer or heart attack.
Post reply on HN