
Coca-Cola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for Obesity Away from Bad Diets - drsilberman
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
======
hvs
dupe:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10031953](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10031953)

~~~
mSparks
coke contains virtually no calories.

and a large coke from mac ds about 100% of your rđa of sugar.

then people wonder why so many people have diabetes - an inability of your
body to process sugar...

------
kfk
One thing with the beverages is that if you choose to not drink them, you will
most likely be the weird one in most social situations. Especially if you cut
on alcohol. I have nothing against drinks in general, but they should be an
exception, not the rule. We should not drink beer or cola or any of this stuff
on a daily or almost daily basis. Mainly because they introduce a truckload of
useless calories that do no good to us and do not even fill our appetite.

Now, that's the logic, and it's a sound logic, go explain that to people every
time you are drinking water in a pub and they go: "ehm, uh, you don't drink?".
Which, by the way, if not explained properly can seem like you are a
recovering alcoholic, if explained properly will make you sound like a
food/diet nazy.

~~~
samsolomon
Anecdotally, I don't know anybody under the age of 30 that regularly drinks
soft drinks anymore. They aren't terribly good and they are about the worst
thing you can put into your body—a can of coke has more than 40gs of sugar.

Alcohol might be a tough one to kick. It's so intertwined with social life I
don't see it going away anytime soon.

~~~
forgetsusername
> _a can of coke has more than 40gs of sugar._

A can of Coke has 33g of sugar.

~~~
djloche
It depends on the amount of CocaCola in the can, and the formula for that
particular distribution.

Eg. USA has a 12oz can with 39 grams of sugar. UK has a 330ml can with 35
grams of sugar. (They aren't required to provide more precise accounting and
so that 35 or 39 are rounded figures). These are close to the same.

Of course, if one is using 'coke' generically, there are many that have more
than 40 grams. A 12oz can of A&W root beer is at 46 grams, as is a 12oz
Mountain Dew.

~~~
zo1
Why not then just standardize, or at least attempt to, the method by which we
compare sugar-content in these discussions.

I.e. "4 grams of sugar per 100ml of coke"

~~~
VLM
From a health standpoint its like arguing the relative merits of 3 packs a day
of smoking vs 3.1415 packs a day, "eh".

Also unit dosage for virtually all consumers is the unfortunately somewhat
variable can.

~~~
djloche
Yeah... back in the day, us kids would try to find the soda with the highest
cane sugar content. Now, I try to find the lowest net carbs in everything I
eat or drink. Arguing about 33g vs 40g in a soda does seem non-productive.

------
samtp
It should be notied the Dr. Blair is one of the most cited exercise science
researchers of all time. He's not simply a shrew for Coca Cola, he has
produces some of the most monumental papers in the field. If you look at his
career timeline, his research matched with what Coca Cola wanted to promote
(before they started working together), not the opposite.

He is also extremely passionate about helping reduce obesity in South Carolina
especially. One of the nicest and most honest people I've ever met.

*disclaimer, I've worked with him on startups combining exercise science and mobile apps.

------
balabaster
It's articles like this that deplete what little faith I have remaining in
"science." The science that is released to the public has been subverted and
corrupted by so many orders of magnitude that I'm not even sure why they
bother calling it science any more. The lack of objectivity and conflict of
interest in the studies/results is astounding. When politics is funding biased
studies in the name of furthering corporate profits and then releasing it as
"actual science", it's more than disheartening, it's downright sickening.

It's funny how many scientific atheists sneer at the religious for their
beliefs when there's so much corruption in their own ranks... and that's
coming from someone who'd rather believe in science than any form of organized
religion...

~~~
qzcx
Agreed. However, I would argue that this is older than science itself. Before
it was governments and religions who claimed to know better than science. Its
about control, and hijacking science is a way to get "credibility". But I've
got hope that real science will always win out eventually. It just takes time.

~~~
ttctciyf
Failing that, we can always study the hijacking:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology)
\- a field with a future!

~~~
qzcx
I was required to read Merchants of Doubt for my biology class in college.
Pretty good read on this topic.

------
mlrtime
Just watched 'Fed Up' this week. It is your typical one sided documentary
however it does shed a lot of light into this topic.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381335/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381335/)

Also, I'd recommend going here and looking at the FDA's proposal on labeling
%DV for added sugars:
[http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocuments...](http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm)

------
rm_-rf_slash
Their message is shamelessly misleading, but there is something to it: most
people will find it requires far less willpower to put down the fork than to
put on some running shorts and go out for a jog.

~~~
prawn
Drink less soft drink and need less exercise = less money for beverage and
exercise industries.

Keep drinking soft drink, exercise more = more money for both industries.

I don't think they care about difference in willpower, only money. They will
say almost anything to get it from you.

------
awjr
I recently watched [http://thatsugarfilm.com/](http://thatsugarfilm.com/)
which looks into why sugar is so bad. Sugar consists of Glucose and Fructose.
Your body knows what to do with glucose, releases insulin preventing fat from
being burnt and enables your cells to use glucose. Fructose is converted into
fat by your liver but cannot be used until the insulin subsides. Fructose
really is "bad". Sweetners do not help either as they keep your body addicted
to sugar. It also looked at the impact sugar had on brain function. Note that
in the film he kept to similar calorie intake, just swapped out his good fat
sources with low fat "healthy" choices. He gained 8kg primarily around the
waste within 40 days.

Combine that with the meta study that showed exercise was not something to
take up as part of a weight reduction regime
[http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-
families/...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/you-
dont-need-to-do-one-iota-of-exercise-to-lose-weight-says-scientific-
study-10197434.html) and you can begin to understand how important it is that
Coca Cola need to push this message.

The reality is, added sugar products need taxation which is then ring-fenced
to support healthy eating education and healthy transport schemes (Walking,
cycling and public transport). We need to recognise that added sugar, in
particular fructose, has to be treated on the same level as smoking is.

~~~
wdewind
> Your body knows what to do with glucose, releases insulin preventing fat
> from being burnt and enables your cells to use glucose. Fructose is
> converted into fat by your liver but cannot be used until the insulin
> subsides. Fructose really is "bad". Sweetners do not help either as they
> keep your body addicted to sugar. It also looked at the impact sugar had on
> brain function. Note that in the film he kept to similar calorie intake,
> just swapped out his good fat sources with low fat "healthy" choices. He
> gained 8kg primarily around the waste within 40 days.

Ok but the insulin _does_ subside and you do use the fat created from fructose
provided you aren't eating a caloric surplus. There may be minor differences
but calling any macro or micronutrient category "bad" is missing the forest
for the trees. There is quite simply no way he gained nearly 20 lbs in a
little over a month without significant increasing his calorie intake or
decreasing his calorie output.

> The reality is, added sugar products need taxation which is then ring-fenced
> to support healthy eating education and healthy transport schemes (Walking,
> cycling and public transport). We need to recognise that added sugar, in
> particular fructose, has to be treated on the same level as smoking is.

The reality is that sugar is completely healthy for many people, and that the
idea that sugar is "poison" is completely incorrect. It's dose dependent, like
any other food. If you are sitting around all day doing nothing and you eat a
lot of sugar you will gain unhealthy body mass, but for many atheletes, for
instance, sugars are an extremely important part of performance quality.
Protein or fat when eaten in excess will also make you fat. What separates
sugar from cigarettes is that there are doses at which sugar is completely
fine (even good) for you, and there is no dose at which a cigarette is good
for you.

~~~
spion
Isn't the problem that once the insulin subsides you're hungry again? Sugar
(and other high-GI foods) are very quickly processed and stored as fat, and
the reserves in the blood are depleted soon afterwards.

The amount you eat isn't a function of how many calories are in the food, but
how hungry you feel (assuming that the willpower you can put into fighting
against your hunger is constant). Therefore the best foods to eat would be the
ones with the largest "satiety load" per calorie, and I'm pretty sure high GI
is inversely correlated with that

~~~
wdewind
Yep, I think that's a totally fair analysis, but it still is one that involves
poor health outcomes resulting from consuming more calories than you need, not
directly because you consumed a specific macro or micronutrient.

------
Hermel
To be fair, obesity is caused by a multitude of factors. For example, one
often overlooked factor is the speed of eating. Your body only notices that
you had enough with a certain delay. The faster you eat, the more you get in
before feeling full. So regardless of food quality, _fast_ food poses an
elevated obesity risk.

~~~
taeric
Careful with this being fair, though. It feels like the same rhetoric as
acknowledging that other factors contribute to climate change.

------
pkulak
Here's the video that started a lot of the public awareness of the issue:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM)

And there's also now a great documentary on Netflix called "Fed Up"
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCUbvOwwfWM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCUbvOwwfWM)),
for anyone who has a subscription. It particularly tackles this silly idea
that it's okay to eat and drink shitty food all day, so long as you exercise
for a little bit too.

------
rayiner
I don't get the whole anti-"processed food" thing. The whole change in weight
in the U.S. can be explained by increased caloric intake since the 1970's.
It's not like we didn't have Coke back then.

I think the real problem is capitalism. It makes good economic sense to sell
your customers too much food. Consider Starbucks. Your parents' coffee and a
donut was a 250-300 calorie breakfast. Today's latte and a scone is double
that and yields a much nicer profit margin.

~~~
njs12345
I think the problem with processed food is that it allows combinations of
nutrients which don't occur in nature, which our bodies are not well adapted
to.

It's not so much processed foods - obviously you can have processed foods
which are healthy too. But if people with very unhealthy diets cut out the
kinds of processed foods they eat it would probably go a long way towards
making them healthier.

And you're right that capitalism is the root cause - the incentives are skewed
towards making foods more addictive and moreish, to help with sales, which
leads to making them worse for us. Big food companies even have labs to help
them optimise this: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-
extraordinary...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-
extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html)

~~~
Gibbon1
One problem with a lot of processed foods is the removal of soluble fiber
which if present slows down the digestion of carbohydrates (glucose). Another
problem is many processed foods contain added free glucose and fructose.

The result of eating these foods are very high glucose levels in the blood +
insulin levels which interferes with metabolic signaling. Insulin tells your
body to store glucose as fat. Insulin inhibits leptin receptor signalling
which means your brain loses the ability to sense how much fat your body is
carrying around.

Fructose in large amounts is hepatotoxic, just like alcohol. In fact for the
same metabolic reason as alcohol.

------
bsdpython
I am far from knowledgeable regarding diet and nutrition but I recently
switched from drinking a good amount of fruit juice and an occasional soda to
drinking 100% water. I wasn't really even overweight but I shed 10 lbs within
a month and I feel in much better health. I don't think it's just sodas -
pretty much any drink with a lot of calories and sugar seem like a waste. Now
when I see those giant sized sodas in restaurants I can't believe I used to
drink them.

------
mason240
Are the studies still producing valid, peer-reviewed results?

~~~
balabaster
That depends who you ask... they've probably been peer reviewed by other
biased peers who are on Coca-Cola's payroll... or at least peers who favour
these big food companies. So technically, yes, they're peer reviewed. Does it
make them any more valid? Draw your own conclusions.

~~~
jonlucc
That's not how peer-review works in science journals. If Coke publishes the
data on their website, they don't need any additional hoops. If it gets
published in a scientific journal, the article is sent in to the editor. Then
the editor makes a decision if it's even the kind of thing they'd want in
their journal and either sends it back or sends it to their choice of
scientists in the field. Those scientists (usually 4) offer revision
suggestions and their feedback. It's then up to the editor to reject the
article, print it, or require modifications before printing it.

~~~
onion2k
If Coke funds 1000 studies in to the effect of exercise, and they all
demonstrate "not exercising enough" is a contributing factor to obesity then
the media will be full of stories about how no exercise makes you fat, and
Coke will have successfully made it look like their products aren't to blame.
The 1000 studies could all valid science but there's still a problem because
it's skewing the amount of evidence away from diet and towards exercise, when
the reality is that both are important.

~~~
forgetsusername
> _it 's skewing the amount of evidence away from diet and towards exercise,
> when the reality is that both are important._

I very much doubt that a series of studies, if valid, and even if funded by
Coke, is "skewing" the amount of evidence.

It's common knowledge that fitness is dependent on diet and exercise. I don't
see much wrong with a corporate entity producing _legitimate_ science that
happens to support their product (if that's the case here), especially in a
maternalistic society like the US, that wants to "ban" things like soft drinks
for "the good" of the populace.

------
will_brown
This post reminds me of the mouse experiment showing mice preferred the reward
of refined sugar over cocaine, even when the mice were already addicted to
cocaine.
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931610/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931610/)

Perhaps their should very basic study on general health/weight of people who
regularly consume refined sugars and those who abstain from refined sugar
(with neither group engaging in structured exercise. Or have these scientists
answer a more basic question about obesity...all things being equal, if you
took a person (whether they exercise or not) would that person be more likely
to be obese if they consumed a 200 calorie soda every day or replaced the soda
with 200 calories of almonds. I think people would be greatly surprised to
find out a calorie is not simply a calorie as is often suggested and that
sugar has a lot more impact on obesity than fats.

~~~
Zergy
> I think people would be greatly surprised to find out a calorie is not
> simply a calorie as is often suggested and that sugar has a lot more impact
> on obesity than fats.

I would be throughly shocked considering everything I have read is to the
contrary. The much more likely issue is the soda drinker would feel compelled
to eat/drink something sugary after a short period where as the person eating
almonds would be satisfied. Interestingly you touch on this with your rat
experiment and then somehow come to the conclusion "calorie is not a calorie".

In the end a calorie is a calorie in terms of the potential to expand your
waistline, but a calorie is not a calorie in terms of putting the fork down
and feeling satisfied. Maybe I misunderstood and that was your point.

[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/is-a-calorie-a-
calorie.htm...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html)

[http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full)

------
acd
There was an article here that 50% of food science is not valid research.
Further companies in the food industry pay researchers to do research which by
chance often returns positive studies in favor for those who paid for it.

"No connection with Fructose and obesity" Sponsored by the Canadian
sugarinstitute who is owned by: Coca Cola and Pepsi co and corn producers.

------
whizzkid
It is little bit weird that we are hearing this from scientists but apart from
that there is nothing wrong with what it says I think.

Just because some people can not resist and drink responsibly, why should the
company take the blame?

Having too much of almost everything is bad for you, am i missing something
here?

~~~
hyperdunc
Companies that produce junk foods tell us the dietary information we need to
ensure we consume responsibly is printed on the packet or bottle.

They don't explain how their products and accompanying advertising are
designed to subvert our logical minds by appealing to our biological desires.

Their techniques have been honed over time and have become rather powerful.
Over-consuming may not be a problem for you but not everyone is so resilient.

------
tlb
Is there much high quality, original research left to be done around "sugary
diets cause obesity?"

It's not my field, but I suspect that the only original research left to be
done examines other potential causes. There's lots of good work on the
Microbiome, for example.

Can someone from the field tell me, if they had a big fund to counter-balance
the bias caused by Coca-Cola, what original research it would fund?

~~~
iopq
Sugary diets do not cause obesity any more than starchy diets do. A lot of
obese people only consume diet drinks yet they still gain weight from the
chips, the bread, the beer, etc.

------
raverbashing
Free soda refills in restaurants may make sense economically but it makes no
sense from a diet point of view

Same thing with most crap people eat every day.

I'm not against processed foods per se, the increase in food safety and
storage time makes sense.

Now, people make meal-sized (calory-wise) snacks by stuffing a bag of Doritos
in between meals, eating a whole pack of Oreos, or just eating unbalanced
(usually both micro and macronutrient unbalanced) meals etc

------
kelvin0
Here is an alternative view to these corporate 'studies':
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM)
Or simply watch pictures taken in the 1920-60's, it's pretty shocking how most
north americans were much much leaner.

~~~
r00fus
Having visited Europe recently another thing I noticed is that the car wasn't
nearly as ubiquitous there. I don't think people there specifically ate less,
they are just less sedentary.

I've also noted folks who spend significant time on both in big cities with
public transport, and also significant time in car-centric cities, their
weight fluctuates appropriately (about 15% less weight when decent public
transport is available).

~~~
mkohlmyr
Definitely true, in large part I believe this is heritage (older cities not
necessarily built for massive numbers of cars) but also towns and cities just
being smaller or "tighter" in general if that makes sense.

I live on the south coast of the UK and I take the bus to work and then walk
home in the evening, takes about an hour. It's pretty pleasant and a good way
to both process the day and move around a little. I feel far better when I
walk home than when I used to take the bus.

It's actually one thing I'm slightly bugged by as I'm getting ready to move to
the bay area for a year. I don't want to buy or lease a car. I haven't
actually wanted or needed a car since getting my licence.

------
ChrisLTD
This is reminiscent of the tactics tobacco companies used to keep selling
cigarettes after research and experience started to suggest their products
caused cancer.

------
frogpelt
The blame for obesity lies squarely on the enlarged shoulders of the obese.

It certainly isn't Coca-Cola's fault.

The level of blame-shifting in our society is amazing.

------
absolutenumber
These are not scientists at all.These are coke lobbyists who sell their souls
for coke's money. Shame on them.

------
Simulacra
This is a duplicate.

------
davidf18
One 20oz (vending machine size) bottle of Coke per day is 52 lbs of sugar
(well, actually high fructose corn syrup) per year. Next time you go shopping,
count 10 5-lb bags of sugar. Each and every year.

The NYC Dept of Health estimates that 30% of adult New Yorkers have one sugar-
added beverage per day. 20 years ago there were 10oz bottle in vending
machines, then 12oz cans, now also 20oz bottles, thus, those consuming a
bottle a day today now consume 52 lbs of sugar per year compared with 26 lbs
20 or so years ago.

Many of the poor (and others) have no idea how many sugar calories they are
consuming each year when they drink Coke and other sugar-added beverages.

Besides tobacco use, obesity and lack of exercise is one of the major
contributors to our increased health care costs.

The previous NY Mayor, Bloomberg, tried to have a state tax on sugar-added
beverages passed which is what is recommended by public health officials such
as the CDC but that was turned down. Then he lobbied the Federal Government to
not allow food stamps to be used for sugar-added beverages but that was turned
down. Then the health dept. tried to ensure that in venues where they had
control that sugar-added beverages would have a 16oz size limit, but they lost
in court.

Ironically, the land for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
which is located in Atlanta, Georgia was donated by none other than The Coca
Cola Company.

~~~
andegre
About one month ago, I dropped Mountain Dew (and all pop/soda) cold-turkey.
The only time I DO have pop, is when I have a mixed drink, and that's
7up/Sprite, about 3 cans per week. I used to drink 2 20oz Mountain Dews per
day, for 20 years. Yes, I'm obese. I hope I start to see the effects soon of
the drastically reduced sugar/fructose intake. After 1 month, I haven't
noticed anything yet. (My wife's a health nut, and makes me eat pretty well
also)

~~~
emodendroket
While it can certainly make a big difference dropping soda alone probably
won't have the kind of results you're hoping for. I think when I quit drinking
soda with every meal I lost something like two inches off my waistline --
significant but not really the difference between obese and normal weight
either.

~~~
andegre
Just losing 2 inches would be a huge confidence booster for me. I'm 6'3", 285
pounds, and between a 40-42 inch waist. If I could get below 40's again, I'd
feel so much better.

~~~
saiya-jin
There is this japanese approach called kaizen, meaning one step at a time. You
already made the first and hardest one - decide for a change.

removing sodas (and other corn syrup stuff) is amazing step, what about a bit
more movement? try walk, start with shorter, make them longer over time. find
something to enjoy on these changes, that helps motivation a lot.

be persistent, don't make petty excuses why to skip it, and give it all a bit
of time. learn to enjoy sweat - it means you're doing something good for
yourself ;)

------
cowardlydragon
"Dr. Blair, a professor at the University of South Carolina whose research
over the past 25 years has formed much of the basis of federal guidelines on
physical activity, and Gregory A. Hand, dean of the West Virginia University
School of Public Health."

Is this a new thing in the big university scam? Trade a substantive (yet
probably middling in actuality) "brand", propped up by big-time sports as a
legitimate academic institution (although primarily being a degree stamper and
alcoholic post-highschool baby sitter), take money, produce study?

I've heard of specious sponsored research before, but not in "major"
institutions like these.

------
pinaceae
other possible reasons for obesity:

\- increased car ownership

\- lower cost of food, allowing binging (people could not afford meat all
week)

\- shifting nature of work. most jobs now are done in a sitting position of
some sort, hard manual labor is getting rare.

now add medicine that allows you to sustain the obese lifestyle, from statins
to insulin, and you can let your body go without much consequence (for a
while).

and hell, forget the soft drinks. go to any cheap place in the US and
everything is sugar-glaced. Try ordering something healthy from Panda Express,
etc. And even traditional stuff like Ribs - put on that sweet BBQ sauce.

combine ALL the above and you might have an explanation of rising obesity.
pretty sure it is not a simple equation, it never is.

~~~
awjr
Well fructose was a rarely part of the human diet and is converted to fat by
your liver. Sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. When your body get's a hit
of glucose it releases insulin that tells your body not to burn fat but use up
the glucose. So that fructose gets stored away. Ironically healthy fruit
smoothies are exceptionally bad :D

Yes a country's transport policy has an impact. Netherlands has an obesity
rate of 1.6% in boys vs 16% in the UK. So getting your kids cycling/walking to
school is of massive benefit to the long-term health of your nation.

You still need to deal with the wrong type of calories being delivered into
your population.

~~~
cautious_int
_smoothies_

They are way better than any soft drink. Even if you pick the fruit with the
most fructose/glucose percentage you still get the benefit of slower digestion
due to fibers which slow digestion. Slight exaggeration, but in comparison,
drinks are almost an injection of sugar into the blood-stream.

I would consider them healthy if they are ingested in appropriate quantities,
without any added sugars, and along with some additional food that is rich
with protein and fibers, like wheat and grains.

------
BiboBonn
reddit

------
PepeGomez
I know it's not a representative sample or anything, but in supersize vs.
superskinny if there's somebody drinking a lot of sugary drinks, it's always
the superskinny one, never the supersize one. The supersizers always eat a lot
of salt, protein and fat.

------
EliRivers
Similarly, see "Merchants of Doubt" by Oreskes and Conway. A small number of
scientists (whose scientific field is sometimes barely or even not-at-all
related) routinely get hired by front companies for various business interests
to deny the hazards of smoking, climate change and so on.

Some of the ones who fought the "smoking isn't bad" action went on, after that
was finally buried, to work for the "climate change isn't happening" front.

Tends to work in the exact same way as this is. Create a reasonable sounding
front outfit ("Global Energy Balance Network" in this case), and throw money
at the small handful of scientists you can find who will oppose the consensus.
Use your money and media contacts to get their views far more publicity than
they deserve, creating the illusion of a large body of dissenting scientists.
Take advantage of current media belief that "balance" means you have to
provide airtime to some crazy kook to oppose any view, and hold off the
inevitable for as long as possible.

~~~
EliRivers
And as follow-up to my unpopular comment above, here's someone else coming out
and declaring it basically nonsense with distorted science. No surprise there.

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-you-lose-
weigh...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-you-lose-weight-with-
exercise-alone1/)

