Another great guest blog, enjoy!
Ok, you are finally getting it. The soda rant everyone needs to hear from this girl, just because if I can stop you from killing yourself slowly by drinking a pop a day, I would love to! (Yes, I am talking to all of you that love your regular Mountain Dew a day!..... or another kind, I just know lots of people who indulge in that drink particularly…)
So here you go, if you were talking to me directly, this is what you are going to get if I tell you that I don’t drink pop and why you shouldn’t.
First: You know those wonderful bubbles you love to drink for whatever reason? Or if we are getting technical the carbonation!?!? (I never have understood why people like that stuff that makes your belly full and makes you wanna burp…) Well, its made up of calcium phosphate. A fancy two words that mean that it does quite the opposite of what milk and other calcium sources do for you. Too much of that, and too little of the good stuff with calcium will cause your bones to break down . Who wants that? As if us ladies don’t have enough problems shrinking in height as we age.
Second: you ready? high fructose corn syrup . Yeah, that’s right. You know the commercials that say “okay in moderate ammounts” or whatever the heck it is…. They are right, it IS okay in moderate ammounts, but for the next day, I dare you to look at every bottle of beverage you drink and check out the ingredients….. You will be shocked to realize that in almost every beverage you buy out of a bottle or can that is NOT organic is sweetened with high fructose corn syrup and it is almost always the second ingredient. In other words, people who make those yummy sweetened drinks use lots of it! AND the stuff is highly correlated with heart disease and obesity. (I know a lot of you may argue about the new “throwback” that has REAL sugar in it, good job. BUT it’s still pop, and I don’t like it either.) SO….. If you want to stay away from this high fructose corn syrup, I recommend organic drinks such as http://www.honesttea.com/ (I found them on accident and they are YUMMMMY and starting to sell in gas stations and King Soopers.) Or stick to water J It is always good for you.
Third: Haven’t you seen or heard about what happens to a penny if you throw it into some Coke for a few days? It dissolves. Deteriorates. Do you really want that in your stomache!?
Fourth: (and last thing that you will hear me TELL you, as if I haven’t convinced you already) is the extremely high calorie count that it will add to your diet. Think about it, on average the regular soda pop has about 110 calories (assuming you aren’t drinking a liter…) Say you only drink 1 a day. Add that up. 365 days a year? That is 40,150 calories a year that you are drinking unneccesarily…. Just immagine if you could replace ALL of those with water, you will be better hydrated AND might even knock off a few pounds. Just. Like. That.
Have you had enough yet? Usually after my rants, I have friends who tell me they really don’t care, then I have friends calling me for a so called “intervention” (wink) which I am happy to give, if you really want me to J
Happy Drinking!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
** And they call me…. “The Pop Nazi”!
Posted by Daily Offensive (baha!) at 9/08/2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
And, if you HAVE to drink soda, don't drink diet, because the non-sugar sweetners are linked to cancer and many many horrible disorders (including dimensia!).
This blog rocked, and it's so, so easy to give up soda, really.
Ok I am pretty sure. like 99% sure I know who you are pop nazzi. hahah. And yes we shouldn't drink pop but for some of us it is are only habbit, and so I think I will take my chance and drink my one usally everyother day. But I love you anyways. Big hugs from paridise.
Now I know why I've never liked pop or anything with carbonation in it...not even when I was a little girl.
I should note: It's not proven anywhere, by any scientific study, that artificial sweetner causes cancer. That aside...
The carbonation does another nasty thing to you too: it eats the enamel on your teeth. If you're a regular drinker, try talking to your doc about it. It's REALLY pricey to get the enamel put back on. Yikes.
It's not the carbonation, it's the acid (like in fruit drinks) and "flavor additives" that are more responsible for the enamel break-down.
http://reallyworks.org/blog/2009/05/18/blame-soda-fruit-juice-and-other-acid-containing-drinks-for-increases-in-tooth-erosion/
http://www.webmd.com/oral-health/news/20040611/sodas-canned-teas-attack-tooth-enamel
Dementia (vs. the spelling-challenged disease "dimensia" brought on by not fact-checking sources) hasn't ever been tied to artificial sweetners. The vast majory of the age group that suffers from dementia grew up drinking the stuff that never had artificial sweetners in their drinks. I.e., they drank good, ol' sugar-laced beverages.
The chemicals that are frequently cited to scare people away are found in greater quantities in other unprocessed foods, but somehow "Don't drink orange juice!" or "Don't eat eggs!" just doesn't sound as scary or nefarious as the idea of neafarious deeds done by beverage makers.
Thanks for all the feedback! It is great for me to hear other views (both scientific, and opinions) that have to deal with drinking pop! I must say that a lot of the reason I quit to begin with was the dehydration purposes that both the caffeine and the carbonation caused when I was in sports and then my so called "hatred" for pop took a lead from there when I have found out so much more about it so it's just one more thing that really IS unhealthy that I like to keep out of my diet :) Please keep comments and criticism coming, I love hearing from everyone and getting more facts and opinions. Thanks!
From the "anonymous" sistah that left the two links above to the *Ghost Blogger*... Something that's very true indeed is that there's nothing nutritious or healthy about soft drinks.
do the research... artificial sweetners are much, MUCH worse for you than regular sugar. REGARDLESS of spell checking. Jeez.
I'm with the spell-checker on this one, I think she did do her research. There is no reliable evidence that suggests artificial sweetners are "worse" than sugar. They're not nutrional either, but they're certainly not worse.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners
Sure, you can find a lot of claims to the contrary on the internet, but do the background research on those claims as well. What's the #2 preventable killer in America? Obesity. What are it's top two causes? Over-eating in general, and eating too many sugars & starches as a percentage of your overall diet.
Another metric: Life insurance and health insurance companies (who lose money if you're not healthy or die early) don't screen you for your artificial sweetner consumption. But they do screen you for other bad lifestyle and diet habits. Hmmm. Wonder why.
- Hunter (Research Assistant)
Funny how this blog prompted such an interesting argument about artificial sweetners. And I think that everyone has the right to their own opinions. :) However, the point of the blog wasn't to point fingers at one sweetener to another, even though in my personal diet I would prefer the taste of regular sugar, and would like to think I make an attempt of keeping as many foods as possible somewhat organic, for obvious purposes. But, for the sake of *this* blog I was simply trying to make a point.... There is nothing healthy about soda/pop at all :) And I personally do not like to drink it, and like to give others my reasoning why. Just sayin.... ;)
Thanks again for all the comments!
Yeah, okay, I admit: I ♥ coke. There's nothing nicer than a fizzy (call me weird, but I like the sting of the bubbles) coke with a squirt of lime on a hot day.
Having confessed, I've cut back. Alot. For two reasons, money and weight gain. I heard on the radio that drinking one soda a day will cause one to gain 12lbs a year!! Now, imagine drinking more than one a day. It's easy. Yikes.
Good blog! :)
The article in the link below doesn't argue for or against any of the points made here, it's just interesting and related to the general subject of healthy water consumption...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html
According to former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Epidemiology Branch Chief Thomas Wilcox, it’s the artificial sweetener aspartame. A total of 92 different symptoms and health conditions were reported by physicians and consumers of aspartame in this time frame.
Arthritis, diabetes, kidney disease, and hypertension are among the serious medical conditions that have been potentially linked with aspartame.
H.J. Roberts, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.C.C.P., writing on mercola.com, says, “aspartame can have multiple neurotoxic, metabolic, allergenic, fetal and carcinogenic effects…The existence of aspartame disease continues to be denied by the FDA and powerful corporate entities.
Aspartame is regulated by the FDA, which is paid off in many under-the-table ways legally (and illigally) by corporations who profit from it.
http://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/Blog/David-Spero/some_things_are_worse_than_sugar/
Aspartame : Yes, the FDA approved it for use and deemed it safe. However, they also recognized ninety-two different symptoms that resulted from ingesting aspartame. Use your head!
When aspartame was put before the FDA for approval, it was denied eight times. g.d. Searle, founder of aspartame, tried to get FDA approval in 1973. clearly, he wasn't bothered by reports from neuroscientist Dr. John Olney and researcher Ann reynolds (hired by Searle himself) that aspartame was dangerous. Dr. Martha Freeman, a scientist from the FDA division of Metabolic and endocrine drug Products, declared, "The information submitted for review is inadequate to permit a scientific evaluation of clinical safety." Freeman recommended that until the safety of aspartame was proven, marketing the product should not be permitted. Alas, her recommendations were ignored. Somehow, in 1974, Searle got approval to use aspartame in dry foods. However, it wasn't smooth sailing from there. In 1975, the FDA put together a task force to review Searle's testing methods. Task force team leader Phillip Brodsky said he "had never seen anything as bas as Searle's testing" and called the tests results "manipulated." Before aspartame actually made it into dry foods, Olney and attorney and consumer advocate Jim Turner filed objections against the approval.
In 1977, the FDA asked the U.S. attorney's office to start grand jury proceedings against Searle for "knowingly misrepresenting findings and concealing material facts and making false statements in aspartame safety tests." shortly after, the U.S. attorney leading the investigation against Searle was offered a job by the law firm that was representing Searle. Later that same year, he resigned as U.S. attorney and withdrew from the case, delaying the grand jury's investigation. This caused the statute of limitations on the charges to run out, and the investigation was dropped. And he accepted the job with Searle's law firm. Stunning.
Knowledge is power!
If you want to know my source, just ask; I'm happy to back up this info.
Don't trust the FDA!
Aspartame is a $1 billion industry. The National Justice League has filed a series of lawsuits against food companies using aspartame, claiming they are poisoning the public. In September 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed for $350 million against NutraSweet and the American Diabetics Association. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is named in the suit for using political muscle to get aspartame approved by the FDA.
When ingested, one of aspartame's ingredients, methyl alcohol, converts into formaldehyde, a deadly neurotoxin.
Splenda is made by chlorinated sugar, changing its molecular structure. The finished product is called sucralose. The makers of this poison tout its lack of calories and claim it's safe for diabetics. The FDA calls sucralose 98 percent pure. The other 2 percent contains small amounts of heavy metals, methanol, and arsenic. Well gee, at least it doesn't have any calories. So what if it has a little arsenic? Sucralose has been found to cause diarrhea; organ, genetic, immune system, and reproductive damage; swelling of the liver and kidneys: and a decrease in fetal body weight. What a splendid product!
looks like we have a whole new blog about aspartame, readers :)
Actually, I don't need you to provide me your sources. They come from excerpts out of a book (“Skinny Bitch”) written by a former model and a former modeling agent (modeling & pageantry... the bastion of scientific, biochemical knowledge as we all know), which have been copy-&-pasted in various places on the internet. The model earned her degree in "holistic nutrition" from a correspondence college that's never been accredited since its creation. Because of it's unaccredited status, use of degree titles granted by Clayton College of Natural Health are restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions and are be acceptable to some employers or institutions as well. The modeling agent doesn't have any admitted credentials other than she's a "self-taught know-it-all" (her words).
Here's a review of their credibility from Daily News Central (independent health news service not affiliated with any commercial nor governmental entity):
"There are a great many holes in the authors' arguments. They cherry-pick study conclusions to suit their purposes and cram the book full of footnotes in much the same way an ambitious high school student might cobble together a term paper. The sources are all over the map, the conclusions are taken out of context, and the authors provide no analysis of their own. They're delivering propaganda and trying to make it look academic."
Knowledge is not always power (ever heard the phrase, "She's knows just enough to be dangerous"?). Sometimes just enough is also enough to be lucrative if you twist it right.
For those specific excerpts previously posted, the models site their source as a gentlemen named Dr. Mercola who runs a commercial web site called mercola.com. The www.diabetesselfmanagement.com reference also uses the good Dr. as well as its source.
Mercoloa.com is money-making website representing businesses and publishers who make money by selling “natural” food and supplement products. They benefit monetarily by expanding their customer base and convincing the consumer that their information and products will make them healthy. Part of their marketing is to dissuade consumers from processed food. Eating healthy is certainly an unambiguous benefit. Using scare tactics to build your customer base is unethical.
An independent advocate for accuracy in marketing and political language described Mercola's business tactics this way:
"Dr. Mercola trades on our suspicion of big business. He is right to question whether these large businesses can or even want to maintain high standards... But, he provides no solid research behind the answers he gives."
"He is a huckster, who sells a wide array of things from tanning beds, natural foods like raw honey, nutritional supplements, vitamin sprays, and juicers among many other things. Those who find his health warnings persuasive very well may find his nearly hysterical arguments for the purchase of his products and objections to opposing choices will likely find his reasons for buying his products persuasive.
"I hope you will read his appeals on behalf of his tanning beds -- why you should use them and why you should use his -- and a few other products to get a taste of his style. You might also take a look at the qualifications of the physicians used in his clinic. My problem is that any doctor who purports to treat patients and offer medical and nutritional across the nation should not be engaged in selling."
Mercola has received two warnings from the FDA for marketing nutritional products in a manner which violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. A 2006 editorial criticized Mercola's marketing practices as "relying on slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics." The "natural" food industry (information & products) are not regulated by the government for their accuracy or claims -- that's a civil litigation issue. Speaking of…
The referenced lawsuits were withdrawn by the plaintiffs, There were eight claims constituting the lawsuit, and not a one them addressed health – they addressed the competition and marketing of the product – in other words, a fellow artificial sweetener competitor filed the suit. So the reason for the lawsuit was someone’s greed, and not their altruistic concern over the health of the public. The top three reasons:
1. R.I.C.O. ( racketeering charges )
2. Unfair Competition.
3. False Advertising.
So... we all have choices. We can choose to believe the vast wisdom of models with either no credentials or credentials from an unaccredited correspondence-course, as well as get sucked into an osteopath (vice M.D.) who runs a web site to sell his all-natural products and diet books, and believe a vast long-running but undocumented corporate-government conspiracy has managed to fool an insurance agency into not screening its beneficiaries from known cancer- and health-inducing problems thereby costing them untold billions. Or, we can use our heads and do our research, and get accurate information. We all have that choice.
Post a Comment