Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree10Likes
  • 7 Post By Vapes of Groth
  • 1 Post By K-J
  • 1 Post By Old Dog
  • 1 Post By Vapes of Groth

Thread: Soft drinks more harmful than vaping

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    537

    Soft drinks more harmful than vaping

    This is possibly my most controversial assertion in the little piece I wrote. I think it's worth a post on it's own. Simeon bangs on about nicotine in cell studies being carcinogenic. But epidemiology from long term use of snus in Sweden tells us clearly

    :that there is no added risk of any type of cancer, including oral cancer (where you would most likely find it) except for a small increased risk of pancreatic cancer.

    Oral use of Swedish moist snuff (snus) and risk for cancer of the mouth, lung, and pancreas in male construction workers: a retrospective cohort study : The Lancet

    : that the mortality rates for snus users and smokers who quit are practically identical

    Assessment of Swedish snus for tobacco harm reduction: an epidemiological modelling study

    On the other hand, 180,000 excess deaths worldwide each year are likely to be caused by sugary drinks

    180,000 deaths worldwide may be associated with sugary soft drinks | American Heart Association

    Incidentally, the increased risk of pancreatic cancer is the same for soft drinks as it is for snusing.

    Soft Drink and Juice Consumption and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer: The Singapore Chinese Health Study

    Snus and vaping are almost certainly similar in health risk; if there is any discrepancy, it is likely to be in favour of vaping. We just don't have the 30 plus year time frames for study yet. But we do know that regular, intentional, recreational, as-much-as-you-want consumption of safe nicotine products for decades is quite safe, compared to regular as-much-as-you-want soft drink consumption. And with current studies now under way to look at removing every possible excess risk from flavourings in vaping, vaping is only getting safer.

    Perspective; something prohibitionists and ideologues just cannot get.
    Noe, Greg, Old Dog and 4 others like this.

  2. #2
    K-J
    K-J is offline
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Northern Melbourne
    Posts
    76
    I wish I had a printer so I could shove these right up my nurses pineapple hole.
    spud likes this.

    Two Vision Spinner VV Batteries - 900mAh with two Kanger TS3 with either 1.8 or 2.5 ohm
    "I raise my eyebrow at your stupidity and ignorance, and bid you a good day madam!" - To the nurse that tried to throw my vape kit into the medical waste...after the tussle to get it back off her of course.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne's leafy outer East
    Posts
    3,656
    Funny you should mention the risks of soft drinks, because I've noticed a lot of talk about "Big Sugar" around the interwebs in the past few months.

    It looks to me like fructose may be the new tobacco for the health nazis, and the ANTZ may just realign their focus onto a new target.
    They do have a very successful template to use in their next State funded crusade, with the prospect of extorting mega bucks out of another "BIG" industry.

    The disease is not lung cancer this time but obesity, and the culprits are Coca Cola et al.

    Junk science will precede calls for Government action, with regulations to protect the children, followed by media fear mongering which will have the effect of stigmatising the victims.

    Sound familiar ?

    There's been a lot of it about, but here's one from today .............


    The battle over the compound fructose now reaches new levels of obfuscation. The food industry is a strong – and loud, and rich – proponent, hard to ignore. The European Food and Safety Agency has just weighed in, in favour of the substitution of sucrose (table sugar: a disaccharide composed of the monosaccharides glucose and fructose) with fructose alone, the sweeter of the two – even to the point of allowing health claims for fructose on the packaging of processed foods.
    Fructose: the poison index | Robert Lustig | Comment is free | The Guardian


    Notice no links to any real science, so here's some to counterbalance .....



    Conclusions.

    There are clearly specific effects of fructose but we emphasize that these must be rationalized in the face of the continuum between fructose and glucose metabolism. Control of fructose metabolism is primarily at the level of substrate regulation, the more favorable Km of fructokinase compared to glucokinase. Because downstream metabolism of fructose from the triose-phosphates is the same as that for glucose, there is an expectation that there will be variability among studies. This expectation is borne out and even those that have clear-cut outcomes, show significant statistical error.

    Finally, nobody is suggesting that continued high consumption of sugar is good but there there is a logical problem and a practical problem. Logically, you cannot say that we will look at the effect of fructose but not the effect of carbohydrates. It doesn’t make sense.

    Removing sugar without replacement is obviously good for weight loss but practically speaking, if we want to reduce sugar consumption isocalorically, we must consider whether to replace sugar with starch or with another nutrient, usually fat. There are numerous studies showing the benefit of the latter approach but few demonstrating the value of the former. Showing that fructose is worse than glucose under some conditions is not the same thing as showing that specifically removing fructose is beneficial. Until these comparisons are made, it seems like a good idea to keep some perspective.

    While studies with combinations of fructose and glucose are consistent with a general effect of carbohydrate, fructose alone appears to have aberrant behavior and one might speculate that the system evolved to deal with the two sugars together, consistent with the general absence of pure fructose outside of experimental trials.

    From the perspective of ideas in the popular media, however, there is little relation between fructose metabolism and ethanol metabolism and it is unreasonable to refer to fructose as a toxin.
    Fructose in perspective
    spud likes this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    537
    In no way do I want to support health nazis in their anti-fun agenda with going on to alcohol and sugar after they have finished with tobacco. As you say, they are dour prohibitionist parasites on the public purse.

    I would rather see changes in society that make living better an easier option, carrots rather than sticks, more time for people to enjoy leisure and a less stressed and consumeristic society. It's often the 2 parents working full time to pay off a house situation that leads to more fast and crap food.

    The flourishing of a useless bureaucracy and "make work" jobs in public health and regulation (and all other work that does not actually produce needed goods and services) all have to be paid for by someone and it is the rest of us who pay in increased taxes. We all have to work harder to support the parasites and it is this overwork that makes us sick more than anything else.
    spud likes this.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5
    Soft and soda drinks are really harmful for the health these drinks can lead to cancer and heart problem.
    Avoid the more usage of these drinks in daily routine and do prefer to fresh fruits juices and shakes.

    Click Here
    Last edited by Derwin; 27-10-13 at 02:06 AM.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 04:18 AM.