40g of sugar in one can of soda is pancreatic terrorism. I always wonder why I see “quit smoking” PSAs on TV, but not for sugar bombs like soda or even Starbucks fraps.
my go to drink for pancreatic terrorism as of late is Dunkin Donut's Caramel Creme Frozen Coffee - Large at 172g of sugar per serving
It is a crazy amount of carbs. As a type 1 diabetic pizza is typically one of the trickiest foods to compensate with insulin. And that is only about 100 grams of carbs.
That thing is almost double. And in pure sugar form...
Is this a valid study? (most dietary studies are pretty poor)
Is it the lack of sugar or is that people who don't put sugar in their coffee have a bunch of other things they do? Maybe people who don't put sugar in their coffee are less likely to eat donuts. Maybe people who don't put sugar in their coffee are more likely to workout. Maybe people who don't put sugar in their coffee are more like to have better genes for T2D and that same collection of genes makes the predisposed to not put sugar in their coffee.
I'm not saying sugar isn't bad. It is! (I don't put sugar in my coffee) But, 1 teaspoon a cup doesn't sound like enough to have a measurable impact without knowing that everything else about the people is the same.
Somewhat related post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42625193 It seems like having sugary drinks is not just bad for you, but like really bad for you.
I made a decision about 13 or 14 years ago to not drink my calories and it took another 11 years to actually cease all liquid calories - booze has a lot. I do put a splash of heavy cream in my coffee, otherwise I wouldn't drink coffee at all, as unsweet iced tea is a more palatable flavor to me. But I don't like hot tea or cold coffee. I understand cream has calories, but I have to take a small bit of fat to allow ce…
Same and within the same timeframe. It occurred to me that eating calories is a lot harder than drinking them so I made up a diet of the only liquid being water and no desserts. I’ve since refined it but the base idea was reasonably effective.
Your body, your choice. At least with cigarettes there was a public nuisance argument because of the smell and also the secondhand effect. I dont find general public health a compelling argument for restricting sugar.
That's semi-reasonable in America, but less so in any country with single-payer health care. Like smoking, there are serious effects later in life that cost money to treat; this makes for a compelling case for a sin tax IMO, like we have for tobacco and liquor here in Canada.
So if we vote for a single payer healthcare system, we get a back door for government tyranny over every little aspect of our lives that they decide is bad for us, including as the science shifts? Don’t eat eggs or you lose your coverage, no wait, eat 3 eggs a week or you lose your coverage, no wait.. Sounds like a bad deal, and most Americans will take freedom over free health care if that’s the cost.
Somewhat related post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42625193 It seems like having sugary drinks is not just bad for you, but like really bad for you.
I made a decision about 13 or 14 years ago to not drink my calories and it took another 11 years to actually cease all liquid calories - booze has a lot. I do put a splash of heavy cream in my coffee, otherwise I wouldn't drink coffee at all, as unsweet iced tea is a more palatable flavor to me. But I don't like hot tea or cold coffee. I understand cream has calories, but I have to take a small bit of fat to allow ce…
Same, I no longer drink any calories outside of exceptional cases such as supplements when running long distances. Black coffee and water are the only things I drink. Haven't drank alcohol in a while either.
Your body, your choice. At least with cigarettes there was a public nuisance argument because of the smell and also the secondhand effect. I dont find general public health a compelling argument for restricting sugar.
That's semi-reasonable in America, but less so in any country with single-payer health care. Like smoking, there are serious effects later in life that cost money to treat; this makes for a compelling case for a sin tax IMO, like we have for tobacco and liquor here in Canada.
It’s the root of the toxic nature of American culture. We worship the “freedom” to have bad outcomes shoved in our faces, but castigate and actively harm anyone who falls afoul as a result.
From my limited travels in Europe, I see countries with problems, but with people who appear to be happier and healthier.
The specific thing I'm pointing out is sugar in drinks. As someone pointed out in the thread I linked, it seems like there's a big difference in how your body handles liquid sugar versus sugar that's in food. There are plenty of people that have lots of sugar in food (i.e., a lot American food has copious amounts of sugar in breads and other non-sweet type food) but don't have diabetes.
I can't believe it's even legal to sell those. That seems simply insane.
Your body, your choice. At least with cigarettes there was a public nuisance argument because of the smell and also the secondhand effect. I dont find general public health a compelling argument for restricting sugar.
> Your body, your choice.
Corporate profits. They want you to get addicted for recurring revenue.
40g of sugar in one can of soda is pancreatic terrorism. I always wonder why I see “quit smoking” PSAs on TV, but not for sugar bombs like soda or even Starbucks fraps.
my go to drink for pancreatic terrorism as of late is Dunkin Donut's Caramel Creme Frozen Coffee - Large at 172g of sugar per serving
How much is a donut? I think Elon Musk says he eats quite a few through the day. Yet he's healthy as an old race horse.