What happens if you drink only coca cola or soft drinks?

[physics user1]

I mean no water, assuming water just using drinks.
Does this put you in danger or you can live a long life without having great problems?

Do you risk 2 type diabete or only if you assume sugar also from other SOURCES?
I mean is the sugar in soft drinks enough to put you in risk?

talking about a "normal person" not someone that is overweight or has some particular medical issues

 

[jim mcnamara]

The short answer is yes. Drinking nothing but soft drinks is bad idea. If you define soft drinks as flavored sugar water possibly carbonated - then yeah, you have an increased risk for type II diabetes. (see link below)

In 1982-84 I did the statistical analysis on an IHS (US Indian Health Service) project that attempted to project type II diabetes rates in the Navajo Reservation. The prediction was that 44% of adults would present with type II by the year 2000. Wrong - the reported rate was higher, slightly over 47% according to internal data.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/type-2/

The primary data set the medical staff at the IHS hospital were tracking was the consumption of coke, as it called there. People lived in remote hogans (houses) with no potable water supply. Every Saturday they drove into Gallup NM or Farmington NM and bought cases of Coca-cola. They drank the "cokes" instead of water. They hauled water for their sheep, but they were careful not to drink it unless it was boiled first. So they did drink some coffee and make soups and stews. And consumed water that way. But the sales data for the local Coca-cola distributors correlated well with diabetes rates tracked in the medical records. It also correlated with patient interviews.

This is definitely not an absolute cause and effect. It is more of an anecdote, but is a possible answer to your question. And no, I do not have access to the data or to the documents.

An older study from about the same period showed double the base US rate for diabetes in 1988-89:
J Sugarman and C Percy. Prevalence of diabetes in a Navajo Indian community. American Journal of Public Health April 1989: Vol. 79, No. 4, pp. 511-513.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.79.4.511

This paper from the period when type II rates were beginning to increase rapidly. They pointed the finger at obesity. The research I discussed was looking at what is now called glycemic load in a roundabout way. The real interest was getting funding for water systems.
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/food-beverages/glycemic-index-glycemic-load

 

[Choppy]

I suspect you know the general gist of this already.

If your only source of hydration is from soft drinks, you're taking in about 140 calories directly from sugar every time you open a can.

According to here, a typical male will take in about 3 litres of fluid per day. About 20% of that is from food. So if the rest comes from coke, you're looking at roughly 950 extra calories into your diet every day. According to here, a moderately active young male should be taking in roughly 2500 calories per day.

If you are getting your hydration exclusively from soft drinks, you're putting yourself in a situation where you are either increasing your healthy calorie intake by about 38%, or you are getting 38% of your needed calories from an unhealthy source.

Neither of these are good situations to be in. If you're currently someone who is not overweight and you're in the former category, guess what's going to happen over time. Those calories will accumulate. It takes an adult male about an hour and a half of hard running to burn off that many extra calories. Unless you're an athlete, you're probably not running that much every single day. If you're not obese now, this seems like a direct path to it.

If you're in the latter category, you probably won't gain weight, but your body is going to have to work pretty hard to regulate all of that sugar. According to this meta-analysis, there is a link between consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and type 2 diabetes independent of adiposity. I suspect that's not the only issue either if you're in this category, because there's all sorts of other stuff that your body needs that it isn't getting.

EDIT: Jim posted while I was typing.

 

[CynicusRex]

Awesome. Since I was young until puberty I was allowed to drink soda all day by my parents. No wonder I had caries each year. Then at some age I don't remember I suddenly stopped and only drank water. Since then I've never had any problems with my teeth.

 

[Jobrag]

Jim and Choppy, what if he drank diet (or low cal) versions of the drinks?

 

[jim mcnamara]

The caloric (and glycemic load) would go away. Obviously.

I do not know of any studies showing benefits/detriments of getting all of your water from soda with artificial sweeteners.

Please do NOT post stuff about aspartame:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671
This is a meta-analysis (there are others) that says bottom line: no cancer cause, no neurotoxicity, considered safe. Please read the abstract for more.

 

[rbelli1]

There is also some evidence that the non caloric sweeteners may carry some of the same harms as the real thing:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19151203

BoB

 

[Evo]

There is also some evidence that the non caloric sweeteners may carry some of the same harms as the real thing:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19151203

BoB

I have to say that I doubt the validity of that study "diet soda", what is in the "diet soda" aspartame? saccharin? stevia? What about the other ingredients? No, I'm not expecting an answer, there is none.

 

[rbelli1]

That study does state that it is a correlation and can't show causation.

Here is another:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2008.284/abstract

I agree that these studies in no way definitively prove that the diet soda was the problem. However as more information comes to light I take that as more advice to drink water or any other unsweetened beverage instead of any kind of soda.

BoB

full disclosure: I do occasionally drink artificially sweetened beverages (average of about 1 per week) and even less occasionally sugar sweetened ones.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

I haven't followed this field closely, so I'm not sure if these findings are widely accepted, but there is some evidence in animal studies that artificial sweeteners can cause type II diabetes by altering composition of the bacteria in our gut:

Non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) are among the most widely used food additives worldwide, regularly consumed by lean and obese individuals alike. NAS consumption is considered safe and beneficial owing to their low caloric content, yet supporting scientific data remain sparse and controversial. Here we demonstrate that consumption of commonly used NAS formulations drives the development of glucose intolerance through induction of compositional and functional alterations to the intestinal microbiota. These NAS-mediated deleterious metabolic effects are abrogated by antibiotic treatment, and are fully transferrable to germ-free mice upon faecal transplantation of microbiota configurations from NAS-consuming mice, or of microbiota anaerobically incubated in the presence of NAS. We identify NAS-altered microbial metabolic pathways that are linked to host susceptibility to metabolic disease, and demonstrate similar NAS-induced dysbiosis and glucose intolerance in healthy human subjects. Collectively, our results link NAS consumption, dysbiosis and metabolic abnormalities, thereby calling for a reassessment of massive NAS usage.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/abs/nature13793.html

Popular press summary: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...ter-our-gut-microbes-and-the-risk-of-diabetes

 

[Evo]

I haven't followed this field closely, so I'm not sure if these findings are widely accepted, but there is some evidence in animal studies that artificial sweeteners can cause type II diabetes by altering composition of the bacteria in our gut:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/abs/nature13793.html

Popular press summary: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...ter-our-gut-microbes-and-the-risk-of-diabetes

All artificial sweeteners? All? What about diet tea, why do they single out diet soda? I find it hard to believe without anything specific. The artificial sweeteners are very different. I could believe that certain ones have certain effects but not that all have identical effects. I find it odd that they do not state which one(s) were used in the study.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

All artificial sweeteners? All? What about diet tea, why do they single out diet soda? I find it hard to believe without anything specific. The artificial sweeteners are very different. I could believe that certain ones have certain effects but not that all have identical effects.

In the article I cited, they tested saccharin, sucralose and aspartame and saw similar effects with all three.

 

[Evo]

In the article I cited, they tested saccharin, sucralose and aspartame and saw similar effects with all three.

Ok, thanks, I do not have access to the full article and it's not mentioned in the abstract. Did they mention what could be the common link between such different substances? If you don't know please don't bother digging through the paper to see if they even have any idea.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Ok, thanks, I did not see that.

You would have had to read the full article to see that which, unfortunately, requires a subscription to Nature.

As for why the NPR article focused on diet sodas, that's probably because diet sodas are the main source of artificial sweeteners for most people. The Nature paper tests the actual sweeteners themselves, not any soda or other type of drink.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Here is that study presented by NIH staff so you can read it:
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2014/10/07/taking-a-new-look-at-artificial-sweeteners/
The effects for saccarin were reported for human subjects. 4 of 7 seven subjects developed glucose intolerance due to changes in the gut flora.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Did they mention what could be the common link between such different substances? If you don't know please don't bother digging through the paper to see if they even have any idea.

I was curious about this as well but I didn't see the authors address this question after a quick skim through the paper. Given that the different sweeteners are quite different chemically, it's surprising that they would all produce similar effects. Hopefully someone is following up on this question.

 

[jim mcnamara]

@Ygggdrasil that was my thought as well. Plus we all would hope to see followup studies.

 

[Evo]

Thanks Jim! So it's saccharin. That would also coincide with a paper I found but couldn't read because it's behind a paywall and in German
"Of mice and men--how saccharin induces glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25474285

 

[jim mcnamara]

There do not seem to be direct followups published yet. The above study is cited here, for example.

Here is another meta-analysis:

Sharma, Arun; Amarnath, S.; Thulasimani, M.; et al.
INDIAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY Volume: 48 Issue: 3 Pages: 237-240 Published: MAY-JUN 2016
Usage Count: 1 (Last 180 Days) 1 (Since 2013)

Nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS) have become an important part of everyday life and are increasingly used nowadays in a variety of dietary and medicinal products. They provide fewer calories and far more intense sweetness than sugar-containing products and are used by a plethora of population subsets for varying objectives. Six of these agents (aspartame, saccharine, sucralose, neotame, acesulfame-K, and stevia) have previously received a generally recognized as safe status from the United States Food and Drug Administration, and two more (Swingle fruit extract and advantame) have been added in the recent years to this ever growing list. They are claimed to promote weight loss and deemed safe for consumption by diabetics; however, there is inconclusive evidence to support most of their uses and some recent studies even hint that these earlier established benefits regarding NNS use might not be true. There is a lack of properly designed randomized controlled studies to assess their efficacy in different populations, whereas observational studies often remain confounded due to reverse causality and often yield opposite findings. Pregnant and lactating women, children, diabetics, migraine, and epilepsy patients represent the susceptible population to the adverse effects of NNS-containing products and should use these products with utmost caution. The overall use of NNS remains controversial, and consumers should be amply informed about the potential risks of using them, based on current evidence-based dietary guidelines.

Bottom line - NNS may not be a free ride to the goals to a subset of the population due to as yet unproven risks, so caution is advised.

 

[Evo]

There do not seem to be direct followups published yet. The above study is cited here, for example.

Here is another meta-analysis:

Bottom line - NNS may not be a free ride to the goals to a subset of the population due to as yet unproven risks, so caution is advised.

But, of the study you posted, although they tested several, only saccharin had negative effects on the gut, correct? Unfortunately the part about which ones where included in the test are being assumed to also be in the negative results, causing confusion.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Yes, that is correct. This paper is a subsequent meta-analysis of a large number of papers, including the one @Ygggdrasil cited from Nature.

I cannot tell if the original was a hit and run or not. Usually when something like that paper is reported you see additional studies. Because the paper appears really suggestive. Sometimes due to subsequent problems like funding for a new study the original researchers kinda punt on additional research. Funding is a big one.

You'll notice the second paper bemoans a general lack of random controlled trials in the literature, and because of that, draws a line in the sand in terms of strong conclusions. RCT's are usually expensive especially when humans subjects are in the picture. HIPAA (or it's cousin in Israel) and ethical practices and double blind analysis by unaffiliated teams may place a large financial burden on the research teams.

 

[jim mcnamara]

On RCT's:

I'm a guinea pig in a double blind Novartis funded RCT. It is testing an injection which controls part of the inflammation associated with cardiovascular disease by partially blocking the pathway to C reactive protein. The intention is to stop future heart attacks.

http://www.thecantos.org/cantos-summary.html

There are ~40 hospitals worldwide with medical and laboratory staff in each dedicated to parttime support of the project. ~11000 subjects. There are contract legal staffs in each country, laboratories also. There is a huge database of all results, with translators for foreign language. The company double checks every single lab test. The data analysis is done on a contract basis. This list goes on ad nauseum.

Anyway cheap is not an adjective that applies, the study will end in Jul 2017 after five years. And there are spinoff studies related to macular eye disease that were uncovered about 2 years ago. They found positive results, enough to make them start another RCT. With the same overhead.

I now understand why 30 pills of Zetia (ezetimibe) cost $US 300.

 

[arydberg]

I suspect you know the general gist of this already.

If your only source of hydration is from soft drinks, you're taking in about 140 calories directly from sugar every time you open a can.

According to here, a typical male will take in about 3 litres of fluid per day. About 20% of that is from food. So if the rest comes from coke, you're looking at roughly 950 extra calories into your diet every day. According to here, a moderately active young male should be taking in roughly 2500 calories per day.

If you are getting your hydration exclusively from soft drinks, you're putting yourself in a situation where you are either increasing your healthy calorie intake by about 38%, or you are getting 38% of your needed calories from an unhealthy source.

Neither of these are good situations to be in. If you're currently someone who is not overweight and you're in the former category, guess what's going to happen over time. Those calories will accumulate. It takes an adult male about an hour and a half of hard running to burn off that many extra calories. Unless you're an athlete, you're probably not running that much every single day. If you're not obese now, this seems like a direct path to it.

If you're in the latter category, you probably won't gain weight, but your body is going to have to work pretty hard to regulate all of that sugar. According to this meta-analysis, there is a link between consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and type 2 diabetes independent of adiposity. I suspect that's not the only issue either if you're in this category, because there's all sorts of other stuff that your body needs that it isn't getting.

EDIT: Jim posted while I was typing.

Usually diet soda contains aspartame which is worse then the HFCS in regular soda. What is better is cane sugar that is aviable in some sodas in the NYC area. It is the HFCS that causes diabeties. also see:
Edit by mentor: misinformation website deleted
Al

 

[Evo]

Usually diet soda contains aspartame which is worse then the HFCS in regular soda. What is better is cane sugar that is aviable in some sodas in the NYC area.
Edit by mentor: misinformation about aspartame website deleted
Al

Your post is so full of misinformation I decided it needed to have the truth posted.

Chemistry debunks the biggest aspartame health myths

Aspartame has a bad rap. It has been suspected of causing cancer and depression. However, a new video from the American Chemical Society pulls together the latest research on the food additive, and it’s not as bad as you might think.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/aspartame-isnt-bad-says-chemistry/

 

[arydberg]

I have to say that I doubt the validity of that study "diet soda", what is in the "diet soda" aspartame? saccharin? stevia? What about the other ingredients? No, I'm not expecting an answer, there is none.

I'm not surprised. I have been permanently topic banned from Wikipedia on the subject "Aspartame Controversy" and am very familiar with the so called party line.

Yes the government says aspartame is safe. The government has been wrong so many times in the past that they have minimal creditably. If you choose to believe them it's fine with me. Good luck.

ps.

I have a link in that web page from Harvard law. Can I post it?

 

[jim mcnamara]

@arydberg - Note post #6 in this thread. Aspartame is a polypeptide. You eat literally billions of polypeptides every day in any cooked food. And some in fresh uncooked foods, too.

It is possible to be allergic to any polypeptide including aspartame. That is different from the nonsense you see on the internet about many food substances like GMO's, MSG and aspartame.. Go to the NIH website or the American Diabetes Association website. Get valid information. Please do not post more garbage. Thanks.

And thanks to @Evo for leaving your corrected post up.

 

[ebos]

So far only the sweeteners in soft drinks have been mentioned. How about the leeching properties of some of the acids?

 

[Evo]

So far only the sweeteners in soft drinks have been mentioned. How about the leeching properties of some of the acids?

Are you referring to the enamel on teeth from acids in foods? Do you have appropriate sources you wish to discuss?

 

[Ygggdrasil]

What is better is cane sugar that is aviable in some sodas in the NYC area. It is the HFCS that causes diabeties.

Sucrose (in cane sugar) and HFCS are no different health-wise and both contribute to diabetes and other metabolic syndromes:

Each sucrose molecule consists of one molecule of fructose joined to one molecule of glucose. In the gut, these two components are quickly split apart. High-fructose corn syrup is a less expensive mixture of glucose and fructose. There is no point in belaboring the difference, Lustig says. “High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are exactly the same,” Lustig says. “They’re equally bad. They’re both poison in high doses.”

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/06/8187/obesity-and-metabolic-syndrome-driven-fructose-sugar-diet

This is also the view of the American Medical Association, though they note that disproving a difference is difficult, especially with regards to examining long-term effects:

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has become an increasingly common food ingredient in the last 40 years. However, there is concern that HFCS consumption increases the risk for obesity and other adverse health outcomes compared to other caloric sweeteners. The most commonly used types of HFCS (HFCS-42 and HFCS-55) are similar in composition to sucrose (table sugar), consisting of roughly equal amounts of fructose and glucose. The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS. The advantage to food manufacturers is that the free monosaccharides in HFCS provide better flavor enhancement, stability, freshness, texture, color, pourability, and consistency in foods in comparison to sucrose. Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose is so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose does. Nevertheless, few studies have evaluated the potentially differential effect of various sweeteners, particularly as they relate to health conditions such as obesity, which develop over relatively long periods of time. Improved nutrient databases are needed to analyze food consumption in epidemiologic studies, as are more strongly designed experimental studies, including those on the mechanism of action and relationship between fructose dose and response. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to ban or otherwise restrict use of HFCS or other fructose-containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. Nevertheless, dietary advice to limit consumption of all added caloric sweeteners, including HFCS, is warranted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516261

 

[Evo]

I think we've beaten this thread to death, thanks to all that went out of their way to find appropriate answers. Thread closed.