
Coca-Cola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for Obesity Away from Bad Diets - aaronbrethorst
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/
======
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.

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.

~~~
duaneb
> 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.

I don't think this is ironic at all. A company needs living clientele.

Also, the CDC has better epidemics to worry about than the obesity one. I
frankly don't care if people want to be fat.

~~~
babygoat
> Also, the CDC has better epidemics to worry about than the obesity one.

They can worry about more than one thing.

> I frankly don't care if people want to be fat.

No one cares that you don't care.

~~~
duaneb
Peoples' diets are not the CDC's responsibility.

~~~
jacobolus
You are wrong. Here’s the CDC’s mission statement:

 _The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) serves as the national
focus for developing and applying disease prevention and control,
environmental health, and health promotion and health education activities
designed to improve the health of the people of the United States.

To accomplish its mission, CDC identifies and defines preventable health
problems and maintains active surveillance of diseases through epidemiologic
and laboratory investigations and data collection, analysis, and distribution;
serves as the PHS lead agency in developing and implementing operational
programs relating to environmental health problems, and conducts operational
research aimed at developing and testing effective disease prevention,
control, and health promotion programs; administers a national program to
develop recommended occupational safety and health standards and to conduct
research, training, and technical assistance to assure safe and healthful
working conditions for every working person; develops and implements a program
to sustain a strong national workforce in disease prevention and control; and
conducts a national program for improving the performance of clinical
laboratories.

CDC is responsible for controlling the introduction and spread of infectious
diseases, and provides consultation and assistance to other nations and
international agencies to assist in improving their disease prevention and
control, environmental health, and health promotion activities. CDC
administers the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant and specific
preventive health categorical grant programs while providing program expertise
and assistance in responding to Federal, State, local, and private
organizations on matters related to disease prevention and control
activities._

[http://www.cdc.gov/maso/pdf/cdcmiss.pdf](http://www.cdc.gov/maso/pdf/cdcmiss.pdf)

Poor diets are clearly related to “preventable health problems”, and can be
mitigated via “health promotion and health education activities”, etc. This
falls under the CDC’s Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity,
DNPAO. [http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/division-
information/aboutu...](http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/division-
information/aboutus/)

Here’s the CDC’s nutrition webpage:
[http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/](http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/)

~~~
duaneb
Yea, but you can't blame the CDC for people having bad habits. It's not their
fault.

------
doah78
Things would probably work themselves out if there weren't so much in the
sugar subsidy. If sugary treats and drinks were rare instead of common we
probably wouldn't have as much diabetes or overweight people, myself included.
I feel this kind of stuff is sadly typical of the world we live in, propaganda
at its finest.

~~~
adamnemecek
Sugar would be bad but it's even worse because it's high fructose corn syrup.

~~~
rwh86
First hit on Google:

"Both controversy and confusion exist concerning fructose, sucrose, and high-
fructose corn syrup (HFCS) with respect to their metabolism and health
effects. These concerns have often been fueled by speculation based on limited
data or animal studies. In retrospect, recent controversies arose when a
scientific commentary was published suggesting a possible unique link between
HFCS consumption and obesity. Since then, a broad scientific consensus has
emerged that there are no metabolic or endocrine response differences between
HFCS and sucrose related to obesity or any other adverse health outcome."

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493540](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493540)

~~~
asoplata
The primary author is the central driver behind his own Rippe Lifestyle
Institute [[http://www.rippehealth.com/](http://www.rippehealth.com/)] who,
turns out, partners directly with Coca-Cola
[[http://www.rippehealth.com/partners/index.htm](http://www.rippehealth.com/partners/index.htm)],
including "outreach" and "coordinat[ing] a number of symposia", which in all
likelihood means paid speaking engagements. He and Coca-Cola may have
honorable intentions, or he may be paid to advance their agenda. We don't know
either way, but what we do know is they are connected to each other.

~~~
adamnemecek
Hahaha, this is too funny. I was wondering if I could find some info
suggesting that they are being paid off but I didn't think of looking for it
on their site. Good detective work.

------
danso
I've always thought it would be an interesting -- but not technically
difficult -- project to do a data scrape of PubMed.gov and simply count up and
classify all of the studies that contain a conflict of interest
disclosure...but while the scraping would be easy, I'm not sure how accurate
or complete the disclosures are.

For example, from the OP:

> _Last week, the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana announced
> the findings of a large new study on exercise in children that determined
> that lack of physical activity “is the biggest predictor of childhood
> obesity around the world.”_

> _The news release contained a disclosure: “This research was funded by The
> Coca-Cola Company.”_

This is the link to the press release, which contains the Coca Cola disclosure
in the last line:

[https://www.pbrc.edu/news/?ArticleID=284](https://www.pbrc.edu/news/?ArticleID=284)

The press release links to the PubMed page for the study:
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26173093](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26173093)

...Maybe I'm missing it but I don't see the Coca-Cola disclosure in the PubMed
abstract. However, the Coca-Cola mention is in the full text of the study:
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/oby.2115...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/oby.21152/)

(note: this above link is visible for me because I'm on a university network.
It may not work for you otherwise)

On the other hand, the full text of the study also mentions the
ClinicalTrials.gov ID number: NCT01722500.

Which means it can be found here:
[https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01722500](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01722500)

So maybe the data collection approach should begin with ClincalTrials.gov,
which _does_ have endpoints intended for convenient bulk data analysis:
[https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/resources/download](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/resources/download)

~~~
streptomycin
Disclosures basically never appear in abstracts on PubMed.

~~~
jonlucc
Also, it might not be so easy as just scraping the disclosures. I work at a
major pharmaceutical company, and my name is on a paper, along with my
affiliation. There are also non-pharma scientists on that paper. The paper
contains a line stating that those two non-pharma scientists declare no
conflict of interest. A scraper might dismiss that as non-industry, but more
than half of the authors work in industry.

------
jmiwhite
At every turn the GEBN scientists seem to acknowledge the role of excessive
caloric intake and a sedentary lifestyle, then briefly handwave the former as
overhyped - a large excerpt from one of the linked GEBN "Portfolio Items"
containing a bald-faced example[0]:

>Most of the focus in the popular media and in the scientific press is that
they’re [...]blaming sugary drinks and so on. And there’s really virtually no
compelling evidence that that in fact is the cause. [...]

The big problem is we don’t really know the cause other than, well, too many
people are eating more calories than they burn on too many days. But maybe the
reason they’re eating more calories than they need is because they’re not
burning many."

So - he does know the cause. A combination of inactivity and overconsumptiom,
both of which are remediated with lifestyle changes that invert their
prefixes. Why abandon the latter, simply because each is well reported?

[0]:[http://www.sharewik.com/portfolio-items/the-global-energy-
ba...](http://www.sharewik.com/portfolio-items/the-global-energy-balance-
getting-the-word-out/)

------
bbcbasic
Sad state of affairs, but nothing that surprising. They need to fight dirty to
ensure they exist as a company in the future. As more people realise the
connection between high-sugar diets and weight gain. Tobacco V2.

~~~
matwood
As more people realise the connection between _high calorie_ diets and weight
gain.

Fixed that for you, although it should not be a novel realization.

~~~
bbcbasic
Sugar specifically though. It is a cause of high calories due to it's effect
of creating a high and then a crash making you hungry again. It is also
addictive in itself.

WHO recommend getting it below 50g, ideally 25g per day. I looked on the side
of some of the staple things I consumed (milk, bread etc.) and it is tough
with modern processed foods to get that low.

If everyone followed the WHO recommendation then full sugar coke is out of
business!

~~~
paintrayne
>WHO recommend getting it below 50g, ideally 25g per day.

Really? Because that is how you get into ketosis. That is not just low carb,
that is ultra low carb.

I think you may be mistaken. I have been in that range and it is extremely
difficult.

~~~
bbcbasic
Just sugar, not carbohydrates in general. You can do it by avoiding refined
foods, but you can still eat, for example 100g of oats which you wouldn't do
on an atkins-style diet.

------
logicallee
why do they care that much? coke zero tastes fine, the energy from caffeine
means you would move that much more, the fact that something sweet has filled
your stomach means you're not eating something with calories in it. diet coke
and coke zero are above and beyond coke's calorie-responsible choices - and
they're marketed very heavily and available everywhere, even mcdonald's.

exercise is super-important, as are food calories from stuff like hamburgers
and fries, that don't HAVE a diet version.

why does Coca-Cola care so much? Article would make more sense if it read
"mcdonald's", but that's not what's stated - it says it's about coke.

it just doesn't make that much sense to me. where's coca cola's incentive?

(fwiw I thought I'd mention I have absolutely no disclaimer to make, no
connection whatsoever with coca cola.)

~~~
bbcbasic
Not everyone likes the taste of coke zero, and others perceive it to be
harmful due to the artificial sweeteners.

~~~
georgemcbay
> Not everyone likes the taste of coke zero

Well, there's literally no accounting for taste. Coke Zero is a fantastic
tasting diet soda.

> others perceive it to be harmful due to the artificial sweeteners

These people should be ridiculed, like Jenny McCarthy is, since there's no
reputable scientific or epidemiological basis for their beliefs.

~~~
georgemcbay
Got at least 3 downvotes without a reply on this post.

Pretty good demonstration that everyone ( _EVERYONE_!) has some religious
beliefs they can't stand to have someone call into question, even if they are
likely the type who points out when others have the same problem.

~~~
CamperBob2
It's best not to go to health sites to discuss IT practices and startup
culture, and it's best not to go to HN to discuss health- and medicine-related
stories.

Both communities are full of people who may have substantial expertise in
their own fields, but who also enjoy pronouncing sweeping and groundless
religious edicts in other fields that they don't actually know anything about.

------
kennydude
The calories are not what you should worry about in Coca-Cola. 1 500ml bottle
(supposedly 2 servings, but really who does that?) has ~60% RDA of sugar which
is just ridiculous.

I don't get why they don't just make a fizzy drink which contains at most
10-15g sugar per 500ml (and not fill it with artificial sweetener).

~~~
undersuit
I cut my fruit juices with water, and if there is a soda water option on the
soda fountain I'll do the same thing with sodas. I rarely drink sodas or
juices which is probably more effective than my dilution efforts.

------
rosser
I mean, on the one hand, pretty much anything that legitimately gets people
exercising more can't be _all_ bad. But on the other, we already have enough
"science" with an agenda in the world. At least the agenda here is pretty
transparent, I guess?

------
jongraehl
This would be (barring outright fraud) nearly harmless if we had
preregistration as a prerequisite for studies 'counting' (in meta-analyses, in
discussions here, in academic rankings, etc)
[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/registering-
stu...](http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/registering-studies-
reduces-positive-outcomes/)

I suppose they could still add ridiculous interpretations (as is often the
case when people's livelihood depends on their work being seen to promote a
given side), but at least you could trust the data.

------
geo77
coca cola is simply funding the merchants of doubt in this case the Global
Energy Balance Network

great book:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt)
ok doc:
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3675568/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3675568/)

------
trevyn
Sweet, they should also fund this, also on the front page: "Scientists have
synthesized a new compound that ‘mimics’ exercise."

Yay progress!

------
jgalt212
I know flippant comments are not encouraged here, but this headline is
probably the least surprising thing I learned this week.

~~~
coldtea
A society is in trouble when people are going "that's not news" instead of
enraged and looking to change it when learning about a wrongdoing.

It doesn't matter an iota if it's "surprising"...

------
xacaxulu
"Company does thing that helps itself"

------
feketegy
Broscience

------
unchocked
Body mass is simple: calories in - calories out = calories gained.

It's silly to imagine that Coke is doing something nefarious (like Phillip
Morris denying that smoking causes lung cancer, or Exxon Mobil FUD-ing solid
climate science) by encouraging people to get more exercise so that they can
consume what they want.

~~~
DannyBee
So let me get this right:

We have billions of complex chemical processes involved in all of this, and
know things like "absorption rates of medicine, vitamins, and nutrients" are
affected by everything from random vitamins to environmental factors to
whatever else.

But body mass, that we have down 100% for-sure, and it's just that simple
formula, no variables, no possibility for any other affecting factors. Sure.

~~~
Crito
It's thermodynamics dude. Your body only gets so much of its mass from the
atmosphere with your lungs, the rest of it comes through food. It can't make
mass.

Fat tissue is no exception. Your body is only able to make it if you give your
body sufficient raw materials to make it.

Similarly, if your body is doing work, it is burning energy. Human bodies are
not perpetual motion machines, they exploit energy stored in chemical bonds.
You don't get that for free, you get that from the food you eat.

You do not need to fully understand every nook and cranny of a system to
examine it from first principles.

~~~
DannyBee
This is all completely and totally irrelevant. Read my other reply. Since the
digestion/other rates vary from person to person, you can't simply calculate
your calories out very easily, and positing this formula as if it is useful or
helpful to anyone, is silly.

What is your proposed mechanism for counting calories in and out for a given
person (Note: nutrition labels will 100% fail you here, because of how they
are calculating)?

~~~
Kodix
Here is a proposed mechanism: count calories as they are on the label, see if
you lose weight. If you do not, lower them further, still counting by the
label.

It doesn't matter if they are exact for a given person so long as the labels
are consistent. They are sufficiently consistent.

I'm curious - have you tried losing weight, and is this from personal
experience? Because I found it trivial by just counting calories and keeping a
watch on my weight. I don't doubt that sometimes the calories I absorbed were
less or more than what I wrote down, but that doesn't really matter in the
long run - they're sufficiently accurate.

~~~
DannyBee
"It doesn't matter if they are exact for a given person so long as the labels
are consistent. They are sufficiently consistent."

You argue this with literally no data, and all available data says the
opposite.

The people charged at the FDA with coming up with the mechanism for these
labels _disagree with you_ , and have found 30-50% variance for a ton of
foods.

"I'm curious - have you tried losing weight, and is this from personal
experience? "

I can lose weight fine (and i'm actually at a normal BMI, FWIW :P), and i
don't violate the laws of thermodynamics.

However, counting calories from labels was the most useless thing i could ever
do.

I literally burned 1500+ calories in exercise a day, and ate less than 1500
calories by nutrition label calculations, and did not lose weight. I tried a
variety of different foods/etc. I'm a scientific guy, i have logs of data :P I
didn't cheat, kid myself, whatever.

It turns out, for various medical reasons i won't get into, i am not in the
"vast majority" for whom these labels are targeted, and so the numbers on them
are simply wrong by about 20-30% for me (this is factual, and was actually
part of a controlled study). The out calculation was accurate enough (IE the
exercise part of it). But as you can imagine, when trying to lose weight,
20-30% in variance matters _a lot_.

You can argue "i'm outside the norm", but i suspect, based on what i saw, that
i am not.

~~~
DannyBee
and just to satisfy any curiosity, since i know 1500 calories of exercise a
day sounds like a lot:

I was not fitbiting or any crazy mechanism to count getting up from the couch
as exercise, or counting anything other than the actual exercise calories as
"calories burned". Thus, it should have been a significant underestimate due
to resting calories burned, etc.

In any case, it was running 5 miles a day, as reported by GPS, at 8:15 pace
(which is roughly 120-150 calories per mile, depending who you believe, but i
took the low side), and then running 1000 calories on an elliptical (which is
about 1-1.5 hours at high resistance and fast pace, depending on pace).

The elliptical i used was one which slightly _underestimates_ calorie count
(by about 3%, at least according to two peer-reviewed studies), unlike most,
which overestimate (by about 15-20%).

~~~
dragonwriter
While input-side variability may be a factor, if you are doing time-and-
exercise-description without closer monitoring to determine your calories out,
_output_ -side variability is also a likely factor here.

Also, doing that much exercise, you can maintain a calorie deficit (a real
deficit of calories absorbed vs. burned) and not lose weight by gaining muscle
as fast as you are losing fat (muscle has a lower stored-energy content than
fat); you'd need more than just stepping on a scale to distinguish that.

------
sp3000
Diet remains the single most important factor when it comes to weight
management. Two cookies can erase the calories burned from jogging for 1 hour.
People routinely overestimate the calories burned from exercise and
underestimate the calories that are in food, especially sugary foods. On top
of that, exercise can increase your appetite, resulting in a net positive
calories if you're not careful.

Exercise provides a myriad of benefits, the most important actually
contributing to mental health. But if you are looking to lose weight, a proper
and healthy diet should be your priority.

