HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Science Behind Bannin...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:35 PM

The Science Behind Banning Large Size Sodas In Restaurants (Sorta Like Global Climate Change)

There is contested science… with those contesting the science behind limiting large portions in public venues being paid by beverage corporations. Sound familiar?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/06/bloomberg_bans_large_sized_soda_the_science_behind_the_decision_.html

There are two questions here, both of them well-studied by nutritionists and epidemiologists. First, would people eat or drink less if they were served in smaller portions? Second, would they lose weight if they consumed less sugary liquid?

Tricky, but not impossible. There are plenty of data, for example, to show that portion sizes have increased over the last 30 years while childhood obesity rates tripled. For a 2011 paper in the Journal of Nutrition, Carmen Piernas and Barry Popkin used national surveys to study the diets of more than 30,000 kids and measure how their junk-food habits changed from 1977 to 2006. They found that soft drink portions had increased by almost one-third. (Once upon a time, a "king-size soft drink" was just 12 ounces.) But sodas and fruit drinks weren't the only foods that swelled: The energy content of cheeseburgers increased by almost one-quarter, pizza slices jumped by 35 percent, and portions of Mexican food by even more than that.

snip

The case against soda starts with the idea that the body’s response to beverages differs from its response to solid food. People regulate their caloric intake without thinking. If we eat more at one meal, we'll go lighter on the next. But for some reason (the mechanism is still unknown), drinks throw this compensatory mechanism out of whack. A sugar-sweetened beverage might give you as much energy as a candy bar or a heap of mashed potatoes, but you'll be less inclined to account for it with tempered eating down the line.

Before you throw up your hands in despair, there's one more set of facts to consider. Weed and his co-authors work as private research consultants, and their 2011 paper was funded by the Coca-Cola Company. (Weed has given seminars for Coca-Cola's Beverage Institute that are designed to teach doctors "what recommendations should and should not be made to consumers as a result of epidemiological findings.") The 2008 review that found a "near zero" effect of sugar-sweetened beverages was paid for with a grant from the American Beverage Association, which ended up hiring its senior author to a full-time position. (There were some methodological problems with that paper, too.) Neither Richard Mattes nor David Allison received industry funding for their skeptical meta-analysis, but both have taken grants, honoraria, and consulting fees from numerous food and beverage companies.


18 replies, 1266 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Science Behind Banning Large Size Sodas In Restaurants (Sorta Like Global Climate Change) (Original post)
KittyWampus Feb 2013 OP
ZombieHorde Feb 2013 #1
KittyWampus Feb 2013 #2
baldguy Feb 2013 #18
Gorp Feb 2013 #3
KittyWampus Feb 2013 #4
Gorp Feb 2013 #5
KittyWampus Feb 2013 #10
Gorp Feb 2013 #14
gulliver Feb 2013 #6
DeadEyeDyck Feb 2013 #9
TheManInTheMac Feb 2013 #7
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #8
randome Feb 2013 #11
SpartanDem Feb 2013 #13
bhikkhu Feb 2013 #12
OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #15
LeftInTX Feb 2013 #16
tblue37 Feb 2013 #17

Response to KittyWampus (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:39 PM

1. Is there a greater joy in life than telling others what to do?

Of course there is! Punishment!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:41 PM

2. Then beverage corporations must be the most joyous of all since they've mindfucked Americans

into drinking huge amounts of their crap to the point it's making us obese and ill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 07:00 PM

18. Ubiquitous & over-whelming corporate-funded propaganda, full of lies

And designed to make consumers eager & happy to poison themselves with a particular product?

Sure makes Coca-Cola joyful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:41 PM

3. SNL handled that LONG ago - "No Coke, Pepsi" - We'll give you a better deal - "No Pepsi, Coke"

 

Cheeboigy, Cheeboigy, Coke, Coke, Fries...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gorp (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:42 PM

4. I'm old enough to have watched that live as it happened! I was in high school then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:45 PM

5. Me too. I DID watch it live as it happened. That was pretty much all I watched.

 

Edit:

I was in bed sick most of yesterday and used my mini laptop to do mindless research. I started with Wikipedia's entry for JFK and worked forward to about half-way through Carter before my eyes said, "PUT THAT DAMN THING DOWN AND GO TO SLEEP!"

Anyway, in the G.R. Ford entry they mentioned Chevy Chase doing his "clumsy president" thing, and while there are only two episodes I'm aware of where Ford stumbled, it was considered a factor in framing him in the runup to the '76 election and Ford later mentioned Chevy Chase in one of his books as being a factor. Funny, but I actually liked Ford. His pardon of Nixon probably did him in, but there were other factors. Carter just had a run of bad luck.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gorp (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:57 PM

10. LAND SHARK! And I do think comedy can have on public perceptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 05:16 PM

14. "I'm Fred Garvin, male prostitute. Can you help me with this truss?"

 

"We are just two a wild and a crazy guys!"

"Jane, you ignorant slut. Who did you sleep with to get this job?"

"That's SST as in Super Sonic Transport. It isn't a quiet noise!" - "Oh. Never mind."

"Wadda ya tryin' to do, make a me sick?"

"But NOOOOOOOOOOoooooo."

"Consume mass quantities"

"Hey, you better have those bug bites looked at." - "OOOH, Todd."

"Skylab's coming down and THEY don't know where it's going to land! Here's John Belushi in New York City and WHAM, WHAM, WHAM!"

"Well, exCUUUUUuuussseeee MEEE!"

"It's a really a difficult in a Mexico, ya know? But it's a no problem."

"I was not buzzing off!" - "Oh yeah, then how come there's honey on the sheets?"

And, from the second crew,...

"Is it oregano? No, no, NOOOooo. Is it parsley? No, no, NOOOooo. It's ME GANJA!!!"

---

Some things stick with you forever. They're still running gags with my high school friends. The new stuff I've seen clips of isn't bad, but it just doesn't have the (frankly, stoned all to Jesus) improvisation and spontenaneous reactions from the original crew. And Garett Morris had an INCREDIBLE singing voice!!! I remember when Eddie Murphey introduced himself in the second crew as the new "token black". There are just too many memories from SNL to recall in a few minutes of typing.

They tested a lot of waters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:49 PM

6. Coke Zero

Just as good as Coke but non-poisonous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gulliver (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:56 PM

9. water is even better

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:53 PM

7. What's even more hazardous to ones

Health than obesity and smoking combined is not minding ones own goddamn business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:56 PM

8. Anyone who refuses to distinguish betweem a large CUP and a large BOTTLE is a moran,

and an officious one at that.

Let me know when the foie gras crackdown arrives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:57 PM

11. What I find most difficult to understand...

...is why people CARE enough about soda to complain about the NY city ban on 32 ounce sizes.

You would think we're discussing the slippery slope to fascism!

Are people's lives truly that...something...that it really matters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #11)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 05:10 PM

13. You find it difficult to understand people not liking the idea

of the government telling them how much they should and eat or drink? It's one thing to inform people of the health risk though things like PSA's, but it's overreach when you say this size of soda is too big for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 05:05 PM

12. Sor of like the anti-smoking campaign from decades ago

which I'm old enough to remember. The arguments for smoking were similar, and the skewed science and pro-smoking propaganda is also similar.

In reality, that wasn't so much a campaign against smoking as it was a campaign against cancer, and one particular very profitable addiction that caused it.

In the same way, this is more a campaign against obesity and diabetes, and one particular addiction that causes it. If a measure as simple as limiting portion sizes will be enough to change lives, especially the lives of children, then the intrusion of the government into an otherwise unregulated market is well worth the cost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 05:20 PM

15. I think the large size cup

is a way to get you to pay more while increasing the amount of ice in your cup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 05:36 PM

16. Much easier to ban large soft drinks than reduce CO2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 05:55 PM

17. When I eat at a restaurant, I always have to take home

1/2 to 2/3 ofmy meal in a doggie bag--and I end up eating that food for two or three days! I wish they would reduce portions drastically, but they can charge so much more for huge portions than the cost of the food, that they have financial reasons to serve the big portions.

Besides, most Americans are so used to the big portions now that a restaurant that serves normal portions would be rejected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread