Sugary drinks linked to staggering 180,000 deaths each year: study

[The Straight Story]

Researchers at Harvard University say sugary drinks are contributing to an estimated 180,000 deaths around the globe annually, a startling statistic they hope will spur changes in the beverage industry.

Researchers from Harvard’s School of Public Health say sugar-laced juices, sports drinks and soda are major factors behind spiking rates of obesity and diabetes.

The study relied on data obtained from 114 national dietary surveys, representing more than 60 per cent of the world's population. The researchers determined how changes in consumption of sugary drinks affected weight and body mass index, controlling for other factors known to weight, such as changes in physical activity levels and the consumption of other foods and drink.

They then calculated the number of deaths from weight-related heart disease, diabetes, and seven obesity-related cancers (breast, gallbladder, colorectal, kidney, pancreatic, uterine and esophageal cancer).

The researchers linked the overconsumption of sugared beverages to 44,000 deaths annually from heart disease and stroke, 133,000 deaths linked to diabetes and 6,000 cancer deaths worldwide.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/sugary-drinks-linked-to-staggering-180-000-deaths-each-year-study-1.1202272

Well, hate to tell you I told you so...but I and others did.

Once you get rid of (or are in the midst of doing so) one thing that you don't like there will be another one to come along and replace it. People need their studies (and money for them).

180,000 out of how many people? Now don't laugh at that. How many gun owners use guns in crimes? If it saves even one life we need to ban it (except cars and alcohol of course).

Sugar causes cancer as noted in the story. Just like smoking (but unlike car exhaust and pollution - which is great for us all in this giant bar we are in. Thanks for driving btw, and no - I don't own a car).

I have an idea ---- let's add "Did the subject use sugar" to death certificates, and if checked off yes then we can use that to bolster the number who have died from it (don't need any science to prove it caused/contributed to the death - that would take more money, more work, etc and detract from agendas. We do that already with some things. Also add - did the person live where they were gas powered vehicles.)

[HiPointDem]

1. MORE CRAP STATISTICS TO PUSH POLITICAL AGENDAS

[morningfog]

2. How is the study crap?

[Coyotl]

49. Speaking of crap aand political agendas

Gotta plant this near the top:

[KansDem]

82. Looks like a bad "morning-after"

[MattBaggins]

76. Because they don't like what it says

[The Straight Story]

3. Now, Now - it will help us to get folks to allow more control over their lives

We need to make choices for folks. Except in one case of course.

If folks won't listen to my beliefs they could die, go to hell, etc. We are merely trying to save souls/lives here.

Some people take freedom to the extreme. They eat out a lot, have big drinks - do you really want a society where people do that???

God might get pissed at us. Or insurance companies could raise rates (we have that other god, money, to worry about too).

If you don't want control, except on abortions and birth control, you are probably some damned libertarian. Less choices for me and you means a better world - can't you see that your choices are not the ones others would make???

The mass of people are stupid. They need strong leaders (like a pope perhaps) to make choices for them.

Might be a touch of sarcasm in all of that....

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. Now remember... You don't NEED that soda.

And that's the ONLY reason we'd ever take it from you.

We're just looking out for your own best interests. It's what government does best, son, and we're gonna be doing a lot more of it once we decide what your best interests are.

[The Straight Story]

9. Indeed. We don't need alcohol or a lot of things. Bread and water, we need that

If we would just listen to the preachers....oops leaders....we could be born again and saved!

Praise Jeebus!

Someday I will cave in and convert and join the movement to keep restricting people.

Your body, your choice - such a BS thing and am surprised I see liberals backing that idea (well, on rare occasions). Don't they know that god might get mad and send down some fire and brimstone if we keep letting people have choices?

Save America. Please God. Avoid the coming of the Anti-Christ. Let our popes make decisions for us.

[reformist2]

11. I think you forget that even though you are growing older & wiser, the public stays the same age.

It may seem tiresome to you to hear the same "obvious" information over and over, but there are millions of people who have never heard this information before, and they need to hear it from someone. They're certainly not going to hear this stuff from Coca-Cola and McDonald's!

[The Straight Story]

13. Got no problem with people hearing it

It is what is done with such information that I am concerned over.

[Puzzledtraveller]

27. I never thought nanny statism appealed to liberals

I believe it does not, not anyone who is a true liberal, now, progressives? I am want to say that those who choose the "progressive" moniker seem more apt to embrace the "I know what's better for you doctrine". Just my 2p. Correct me if I am wrong. I am really trying to pin this one down.

[DanTex]

41. So how do you feel about the ban on lead paint?

Is that a nanny state also? As long as paint is labeled as containing lead, should we allow each individual to decide for themselves whether it is worth the risk?

Or how about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Why should the government tell consumers what kind of contracts they should voluntarily be able to enter into with their credit card companies? Seriously, why should the government be telling banks how long before the due date they need to be mailing my credit card statement? I'm a grown-up! If they don't give me enough time, or raise my rate unexpectedly, then I'll just switch to another credit card.

Why is it OK for the government to protect consumers from banks and chemical companies, but not from soda manufacturers?

[Puzzledtraveller]

42. not equivalent n/t

[DanTex]

44. Why not? n/t

[Puzzledtraveller]

48. I love this fruit & snack mix I'm eating as I type this

130 calories per serving and their is 12 servings in the relatively small snack mix of raisins, pineapples, papaya, almonds, apricots, banana chips, cranberries & walnuts.

each serving has

4.5 g total fat
sodium 30mg
total carbs 22g
dietary fiber 2g
sugars 17g

It's a ruse, it's nutritional value is laughable but it looks healthy.

I have almost finished the bag in one sitting. Is it intended to be consumed that way? I don't know, but I did. So I consumed 1560 calories of mostly sugar.

[DanTex]

54. Why are you changing the subject? Are you unable to answer my question?

How is it different?

What is it that makes a ban on large sugary drinks so horrible, while bans on lead paints, or on credit cards that only mail their statements out 14 rather than 21 days before payment is due -- both of which limit consumer choice -- are somehow valuable protections.

I'm looking for an answer. If you don't have one, I can only assume you are driven by some kind of ideological irrationality.

[Puzzledtraveller]

60. Here

Your original response was to my opinion, as I stated "my 2p", as such I do not have to defend my opinion. I have no interest in answering your questions. I would respect your opinions however.

[HiPointDem]

66. Because lead is a poison, not a food? Because lead paint can poison even those who didn't

choose to consume it?

[DanTex]

68. No, lead paint only affects people who choose to paint their house with it.

And the same is true for predatory credit cards. Everyone has a choice.

If a family decides that the risks of lead poisoning are worth it in order to achieve the benefits of lead paint, why should the government say no? If someone wants a credit card and is OK with all the hidden fees, why should the government protect them from themselves?

Besides, one person's "poison" is a another's useful paint additive. And lead isn't even really that poisonous. Sure there are epidemiological studies that show that lead exposure leads to health problems, but we all know that these kinds of observational studies are simply "crap statistics" that are fabricated to push an anti-lead agenda. Correlation is not causation, right?

But even if we believed the epidemiology, so long as consumers are informed and able to choose, why should the government prevent them from using lead paint and/or signing up for credit card rip-offs and/or purchasing large sugary drinks that cause obesity and diabetes?

[HiPointDem]

78. uh, no, it doesn't. it affects people who buy those houses later, who rent those houses from

landlords that used lead paint, who play near those houses & other buildings with lead when the paint flecks off & enters soil or is dispersed by wind, who live on property where buildings with lead paint were torn down, etc.

lead is a *known* and *proven* poison, also *proven* to affect children's neurological development.

With a line of demonstrated causality based on more than correlational studies.

[DanTex]

83. And the people who buy the houses later also do so voluntarily.

I doubt that there's much evidence of externalities to anyone who doesn't either choose to use lead paint in their own home, or choose to buy or rent or visit a house with lead paint in it. And even if there were, it's not hard to find examples of consumer protections that really have no externalities at all (e.g. financial protections for credit cards, product safety design).

And, really how is lead *proven* poison? Have they done randomized clinical trials or experimental studies? You know, where they randomly make some kids breathe lead dust, and others not, and see who's neurological development suffers? I actually don't know, but I doubt it because it would be highly unethical.

Because if not, then all of the evidence is observational. And if you are actually an epidemiologist like you claim, then of course you are aware that, strictly speaking, it is theoretically impossible to draw causal inferences from purely observational data. I mean, it could just be that people who are genetically prone to developmental disorders are also, for some reason, highly attracted to lead paint?

[Bake]

99. Basically it just appeals to a segment of DUers.

Not real, actual liberals. Just pseudo ones on DU who know what's best for everybody.



Bake

[HereSince1628]

19. Here, have a beer instead!

It's not clear to me how the methods of projection of that number dealt with what people would drink instead. People who have money are likely to drink something other than plain water.

What would people drink as alternatives?

water or course, carbonated water, various forms of flavored/artificially sweetened water, fermented grains, fruit juice, fermented fruit juice, distilled fermented beverages, milks and milk substitutes like soy, etc?

And in what proportion would they be drinking these things? How dangerous is the over indulgence of the alternatives?

The alternatives present a varying array of exposures to risks among which are: alcohol, chemical acids/chemical dyes/chemical flavorings/chemical stimulants/chemical sweetners, cholesterol, natural acids/sugars/stimulants, sodium etc.

[The Straight Story]

6. USDA Weighs Sugar Bailout That May Boost Candy Prices: Report

U.S. sugar producers are poised to get a sweet deal.

The USDA is considering buying 400,000 tons of sugar in an aim to limit supply and boost prices so that sugar producers can pay back government loans that they’re in danger of defaulting on, the Wall Street Journal reports. The move would be an exercise of an untested provision inserted in the 2008 farm bill called the Feedstock Flexibility Program, which allows the USDA to intervene in the market to raise prices.

While the artificial price boost would benefit companies that manufacture sugar, the losers may be the makers of your favorite candies -- like Mars, Hershey and Nestle -- and that may mean higher candy prices.

The sugar industry has long benefitted from controversial government subsidies, and it doesn't appear that will change anytime soon: The Senate voted down an amendment just last June that would have slowly stripped the sector of federal government aid, according to Businessweek. Though it’s not uncommon for the government to prop up certain commodities, the sugar subsidy functions differently than most. Instead of sending money to farmers to elevate prices -- like in the case of corn, wheat and rice -- the sugar program limits imports.

A bipartisan group of Senators, who backed the amendment, wrote in an August blog post for The Hill that by tightly controlling the sugar supply, the government is boosting prices and costing the country $3.5 billion and 20,000 jobs per year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/usda-big-sugar-bailout_n_2866535.html

[bhikkhu]

30. Like all those climate change studies

discourage reading+emphasize confusion=keep profits rolling in.

[Generation_Why]

58. How very libertarian of you. nt

[HappyMe]

4. Or people could just learn not to

guzzle a ton of soda and not over-eat.

[randome]

8. But they won't. That's a fact.

[HappyMe]

10. So we have to legislate stupid?

No thank you.

[randome]

17. We legislate all sorts of stupid. Seat belt laws, helmet laws.

What Bloomberg attempted to do -and may still succeed in doing- is to use the least intrusive action to try and cut down on all these needless deaths.

But, hey, let's do nothing. After all, it's only 180,000 deaths. Not a very big number at all.

[HappyMe]

20. But hey, let's encourage people to leave

their heads up their asses. I don't understand what the hell happened to self-control. Having a soda was a big treat when I was a kid. My 1 or 2 cans of Coke or Dr. Pepper a month is still a treat. If I manage that, why can't others?

[The Straight Story]

21. Because some are superior (the priests in this case)

Just because you can manage it does not mean others can. We need to heal them of their demons.

The superior folks need to control the idiots in society. For their own good. Just like back in the day how we dealt with women, black people, and gays (remember when society said it was a mental disease?).

Why would you want to stop such awesome progress from the enlightened who want to save you? Can't you see most people need others to choose for them?

Freedom harms people. Next thing you know, everyone will die of something! We can stop it and make their lives longer (and who cares about happiness, having fun while you are here, etc - the goal is always longer life, not quality).

I welcome our protective overlords. The longer I live the longer I can serve them and their desires...

[HappyMe]

22. lol!

No matter how much broccoli people shovel in, in the end, everybody croaks.

[Peter cotton]

23. On the desire to control others:

“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

---Robert A. Heinlein

[stevenleser]

52. You should be suspicious of people who want to herd all of humanity into one of two labels.

No matter how supposedly benevolent the reason.

[Puzzledtraveller]

45. You are hitting them out of the park on this thread!

[raidert05]

85. But..but..but...

[randome]

33. I don't know the answer to your question. But 180,000 people don't manage it well.

That's a fact. We can wring our hands and worry about having our freedoms taken away from us in the name of the almightly Corporations marketing this swill in ever greater amounts.

Or...we can do SOMETHING. Since I can't answer your question, I vote in favor of SOMETHING.

[HappyMe]

34. I don't blame the 'almighty corporations marketing this swill'.

I blame the people who have no self-control. Those people are the ones that should do something.

[randome]

35. I hear you. But 'should' means they won't because they lack that self-control.

Or for some other, more complicated reason we can't quite define.

[HappyMe]

38. I guess I'm just sick of people

behaving like spoiled 2 year olds. Fuck up, expect others to fix it for you.

[MattBaggins]

86. And when they wont do I have to pay for their mobility scooter?

when they tell us to fuck off they will drink as much as they want and I had better shut up and provide their insulin?

[HappyMe]

91. I would hope not.

But we probably may have to.

They have horror cigarette commercials here in NY. Maybe they should have horror eating/drinking commercials too.

[MattBaggins]

92. That pisses them off as well

Even if they are done by charities or non profits it's a personal attack they won't stand for.

I don't mind them shoveling whatever they want in their own faces but these guys are radical libertarians that even flip out if parents dare suggest they are concerned with what our kids are served in school.

[HappyMe]

96. I get tired of people thinking that making new laws

is going to make this go away. It won't. People finally waking up and giving some thought to what they are eating, will.

There are several Weight Watcher's programs, doctors, nutritionists...all a person has to do is make the first step and sign up.

[MattBaggins]

101. Do you have children

[HappyMe]

104. Yes, I do.

My sons are 26.

When they were young, a can of 7Up split between them was a big treat. They were always riding their bikes, playing soccer, Little League, etc. I doled out the cookies and stuff carefully.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with looking into what's in the foods and drinks. I am saying that at some point, it becomes the parent's responsibility to to say 'no'.

Smaller soda sizes are probably a good idea. That doesn't mean that people won't buy 2 smaller sodas instead of just 1 huge one.

[liberal_at_heart]

72. oh, and I'm stupid to boot. Thank you so much for your insight.

You know what I don't need to put up with abusive people like you. That is what the ignore button is for.

[HappyMe]

74. You want every little area of your life legislated?

You're welcome to it. Just don't legislate the fuck out of mine.

[MattBaggins]

84. Well when the OP has already taken a shot at the insurance side of it as well

If you suggest cost that will set them off as well.

We are not allowed to address the obesity issue at all. All they will do is blather on and on about choice. We can't even offer educating the public as in I don't know, studies on the issue. You are not allowed to do any damn thing at all about disease in this country or they will go ballistic.

Even if you want to try and teach nutrition in schools ,they want to run in, slap the teachers and snatch the info from kids hands while screaming NANNY STATE... BLARGHITY BLARGH MY FREEDUHMS.

As you can see from the posts on this thread just researching sugar will set them off. They won't even tolerate looking into the topic.

[HappyMe]

89. There are a bunch of commercials on tv

about healthy choices. I think they have made some progress with healthy school lunches. At some point, it is up to the individual to make the right choices for themselves. People need to learn moderation.

[MattBaggins]

90. Our bodies food drive is in direct opposition to moderation

We have particular triggers of food pleasure and the makers of the crap we imbibe know this and food reflects that. We have to have discussions with each other on the issues.

I don't really see why we should listen to those who say "I don't care I will do what I want".
Please go ahead and do so but the rest of society wants to talk to discuss the crap we eat and the obesity problem.

The MAH FREEDUMS crowd will have to deal with it.

[HappyMe]

94. Hey, I love a cheeseburger and

some salty, crunchy fries like everybody else. But I don't eat like that every damn day. Most fast food places have salads and healthier options available. They have unsweetened tea and water too.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

[MattBaggins]

95. Everyone knows that

but studying the issues and educating people is a good thing. Some of us are trying to break the cycle.

[HappyMe]

97. Education is good.

You just have to hope like hell that people follow through. There is only so much that can be done collectively.

[liberal_at_heart]

70. yes, let me just snap my fingers and change my brain chemistry and make

all of my emotional problems go away. Ah, there. That's much better. Now, I'm not addicted to sugar anymore. Thank you for saving my life.

[HappyMe]

71. If you have emotional problems,

see a doctor.

[Scout]

100. ... hmm, what if you DON'T do those things

and are still fat?

not so simplistic as so many seem to think.

and there are many people who DO those things and are not fat ... can they keep on keeping on as long as they aren't fat?

[reformist2]

7. I actually think studies like this and related PSAs are helpful in combating corporate propaganda.

I haven't read through the research to decide whether I think this particular study is "crap" or not, but I can certainly see that it is logical to think there might be a connection between super-sugary soft drinks (which do nothing but shock the endocrine/exocrine systems) and early death.

Obviously decisions as to what to eat and drink are up to the individual, but without studies like these, there'd be nobody reminding the public that much of the fast food advertized on TV isn't "fun" at all - it's poison.

[hobbit709]

12. If you still need studies like this, you haven't been paying attention.

[reformist2]

15. Even though you have heard it before, there are millions of young people who have not.

As tiresome as it may seem to you (and even me, sometimes), education of the public is a never-ending process. And they're certainly not going to hear this information from Coca-Cola or McDonald's!

[RobinA]

14. So...

if you consume sugary drinks AND smoke. And if you die of a cardiac-related illness, does your death go into the sugary-drink-related category, or the smoking-related category? Or both?

[The Straight Story]

16. Both so that folks can mine the data and use it

My mom died because the hospital fucked up basically (she only had one kidney, pumped her full of meds, etc) after surgery for an infection.

She died of a smoking related illness at age 70 according to the death certificate.

Now there is no proof of that. But she did smoke, and for that scientific proof is not needed. You just check a box. No tests needed, no medical history. Just answer a question and *poof* you have a cause to use later.

[HiPointDem]

61. both, depending on what day it is & who's doing the 'study'. which is one reason such statistics

Last edited Wed Mar 20, 2013, 03:35 PM - Edit history (1)

are problematic.

[kudzu22]

18. I've been served a sugary drink while I was in the hospital

Can I sue them for malpractice?

[spinbaby]

81. The amount of sugar in hospitals is appalling

I had a gastric bypass and can't eat sugar at all anymore but had to watch the hospital dietary folks like a hawk because they kept trying to feed me sugar. "Plain" yogurt in their book is something vanilla flavored that contains sugar. Appalling. Even CT contrast was presented in a nice big glass of sweetened grape drink.

[Orrex]

24. I wonder how many of those 118,000 also consumed lettuce.

[baldguy]

25. Geez, I guess Mayor Bloomberg was on to something.

[sorefeet]

26. There was a McDonalds in the clinic

here in Billings. I guess after much disbelief the removed it and put in a Subway.
I bought a hot rod magazine full of pictures in the 50s, not ONE fat person, like today all you see is obese. I drink one can of beer a day and the only other thing I drink is WATER. My favorite drink is WATER. I can't remember the last soda pop.

[MattBaggins]

88. Why do people think subway is a healthy choice?

[graham4anything]

28. Here my friend is Exhibit #1 as to why my heart weeps for those children with diabetes and obesity

There are actions and consequences.
A handful of collateral damage worldwide and massive protests over the use of drones going awry.
180,000 a year die from obesity and bad diseases
How many more? (millions???) getting sick a year.

35 a day x 365 a day die from guns=12775 in the usa dead from bullets/guns
and
125x365 wounded a year=45625

You cannot argue the numbers
It has nothing to do with governmental control

It has 100% everything to do with a persons self-control
Same as people nationwide know, they have to control their mouths in a theatre and can NOT yell fire, so the first amendment is NOT 100%.

If everyone could do it without help, there would be no need for any regulation.
But why are regulations good for the land and sea, but not good for this?

Here is a tragic story someone else posted about this early morning.
A 16 year old dead from diabetes, by a mother now guilty and sentenced to many years in prison-thread can be found at following link-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1078&pid=7113

[OldDem2012]

29. Breathing air is linked to 100% mortality. nt.

[MineralMan]

32. Drinking water is the cause of all deaths, too.

And milk? Don't get me started on milk. Drinking milk assures that you will die.

[MineralMan]

31. Another bogus study, assigning deaths to some cause or another.

Too many variables, as usual, for these numbers to make any rational sense.

[DanTex]

36. Have you read the study? Are you familiar with epidemiological methods?

How many variables is too many? And by "rational sense", do you mean rational sense to you, or to an expert trained in epidemiological data analysis?

[MineralMan]

37. Have a nice day...

I have not read this study, since it has not been published yet. I did read the news story, however. Odds are that the study itself will be behind a pay wall, and I will not read it in its entirety. I suspect that you have not read the actual study either. Am I correct in that suspicion?

My criticism of it, and all similar studies, stands, however, despite your criticism.

Clearly, obesity is associated with all sorts of health risks. Drinking large quantities of sugary drinks can certainly contribute to obesity. No study is required to gain that obvious insight. So...there is an association between consumption of large amounts of sugar and obesity. Everyone knows that. Obesity associated with the development of certain diseases. Everyone knows that as well. The study is reported to say that sugary drinks may be the cause of those diseases. People report all sorts of things about unpublished studies. Often those news stories are not supported by the study itself.

Association is not causation.

And yes, I understand epidemiology.

But, thanks for your reply.

[DanTex]

39. I applaud your decision not to get into specifics. Because that would have required you to, ya know

have a slight clue what you are talking about. "I don't need to read the study to know it is flawed" is one of my favorites.

I always get a kick when people with no apparent evidence or expertise dismiss statistical studies with a single sentence. I'm a bit curious about how you feel about global warming, or the link between smoking in lung cancer, both of which also involve "a lot of variables", but I hesitate to ask...

[MineralMan]

40. Please see my additions to the post to which you are replying.

Thank you.

[DanTex]

43. So what's different about this than global warming or smoking/lung cancer?

Every part of that correlation/causation comment could (and has been) equally be applied to both smoking and global warming, which, I'll repeat, both also involve large numbers of variables, and also involve purely observational studies rather than experimental studies or randomized clinical trials.

It seems to me that the only difference is that you want to believe some things and not others. Here's a good article by Mark Bittman of the NYT discussing the evidence linking sugar availability and consumption to diabetes.

The evidence of the harm from sugar consumption, and sugary drinks specifically, is actually very strong.

The study demonstrates this with the same level of confidence that linked cigarettes and lung cancer in the 1960s. As Rob Lustig, one of the study’s authors and a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said to me, “You could not enact a real-world study that would be more conclusive than this one.”

The study controlled for poverty, urbanization, aging, obesity and physical activity. It controlled for other foods and total calories. In short, it controlled for everything controllable, and it satisfied the longstanding “Bradford Hill” criteria for what’s called medical inference of causation by linking dose (the more sugar that’s available, the more occurrences of diabetes); duration (if sugar is available longer, the prevalence of diabetes increases); directionality (not only does diabetes increase with more sugar, it decreases with less sugar); and precedence (diabetics don’t start consuming more sugar; people who consume more sugar are more likely to become diabetics).

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/its-the-sugar-folks/

[MineralMan]

46. As I thought, you have not read the actual study, either.

Never mind. I do not take reports in the media about studies seriously. I take blog entries even less seriously. That is my practice, always. Others appear to take anything reported in the media or opined about in a blog as actual factual information. That is a mistake.

Yes, smoking is linked to disease. Actual studies that are not simply literature reviews demonstrate that. I've read many of those actual studies. And yes climate change is real. That's clear from many studies. Whether man-made causes are the only reason for that climate change is not completely established. It seems likely to me, and evidence appears to indicate that there is an association.

But, association is not causation. It never has been, and never will be. It is just association. Proving causation is very difficult when many variables are at play.

Again, have a nice day.

[kudzu22]

47. association is not causation

I really wish more people understood that. The example I use is that there is a strong correlation between baldness and wigs. A correlational study would conclude that wigs cause baldness.

[MineralMan]

51. It's a point that people really should understand.

Anytime a media report includes the words "Linked to" it's a sign that no causation has been demonstrated.

Everyone knows that drinking a lot of sugary drinks can make a person obese. Everyone knows that obesity is an unhealthy condition, and can cause a range of illnesses.

Someone did a study that demonstrated an association. Some media outlet wrote a "WOW!" story, to talk about the study.

The study, which is yet unpublished, probably says clearly that it is only an association and not evidence of causation. But that doesn't stop people from confusing the two things and getting all worked up over something that has been known for a very long time.

Uff da!

[DanTex]

57. What I really wish more people understood is that epidemiologists already know that,

and have extensively studied the problem of how to draw causal inferences from observational data.

Keep in mind, no observational study has ever concluded that wigs cause baldness. So, if you actually think that the methods in use by epidemiologists and statisticians would actually lead to such a study being published, then you really don't have a clear idea of what is going on in this area of science.

It's true that a lot of people will simply read a press release and conclude that a statistical association is the same thing as a proven causal link. But, just as frequently, people will hear about a study, disagree with it's conclusions for some political or personal reason, and use "correlation is causation" to dismiss the evidence, perhaps even suggesting that a well-controlled epidemiological study is no different than a claim that wigs cause baldness.

[DanTex]

53. Again no specifics. I guess you make up your mind first, and look at the science second.

None of the arguments you have made distinguish the sugar studies from smoking/lung cancer or form global warming. Certainly not the thing about "too many variables". And also certainly not the argument about association versus causation, since we are talking about observational studies in all cases, which have the same limitations.

You can dismiss Mark Bittman as "just a blogger" (and I guess the Harvard School of Public Health is "just a school&quot , but you still haven't addressed his argument, which is that, the standard of evidence linking sugar to inferior health is on par with smoking and lung cancer. Just because he's a blogger, doesn't automatically mean he's wrong -- particularly when the blog entry involves an interview with a researcher from UCSF about a study published in PLoS one (a study which is available without a paywall). If you had paid attention in statistics class beyond the first two minutes when they say "correlation is not causation", you might know what he's talking about.

I'm glad you believe that smoking causes lung cancer, and that you at least partially seem to accept the scientific evidence when it comes to climate change. It's too bad that when it comes to sugar, you (and many others) drop back to slogans and knee-jerk denials of science.

[kudzu22]

55. Well that sort of IS the scientific method

The null hypothesis is that there is no causality. You need to provide sufficient evidence to disprove the null hypothesis, and correlations are not sufficient evidence.

[DanTex]

56. Then what distinguishes smoking/cancer and global warming from sugar/diabetes?

If we were strictly to dismiss all correlative data, then the case for lung cancer and also global warming would be thrown out. Because in both cases, the data is observational, rather than experimental. But we rightly call people who seriously doubt either that smoking causes lung cancer, or that man is contributing to global warming, denialists. So why so quick to dismiss the extensive observational evidence on the ill effects of sugar consumption?

Just saying "correlation is not causation" is theoretically true, but in practice there are ways to draw inferences about causation, often by incorporating domain knowledge other than just the statistical correlations. In fact, in a way, a large part of epidemiology is based on trying to figure out ways to draw causative conclusions from data that is observational and therefore correlative. For example there is the Bradford Hill criteria, that Mark Bittman referred to in his blog entry. There are also other techniques, for example the use of instrumental variables. And so on.

[HiPointDem]

63. You haven't read the study, but you know it's gospel.

The study was reported at EPI|NPAM 2013, the Epidemiology and Prevention/Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism 2013 Scientific Sessions, and has not yet been published.

[DanTex]

65. What are you talking about? I was responding to the "nanny state" comment.

As in, why are consumer protections against sugar part of some "nanny state", but protections against lead paint or hidden credit card fees are OK? What is it about sugar that drives libertarians so crazy?

[HiPointDem]

69. no, you were taking the poster to task for his supposed ignorance, partly based on his not

having read the study.

and it's perfectly clear to anyone who reads the string of posts.

now you're pretending otherwise.

but you haven't read the study either & your own comments about ignorance can be turned back at you.

[DanTex]

79. Oh, yeah, wrong post, sorry.

If you look at the thread, you'll notice that this started when someone called this a "bogus study" and complained about "too many variables". I think we can both agree that those are idiotic comments to make about a study that they haven't even seen. I mean, how many variables is too many, and how do you even know how many were part of this model?

Of course, I never said this study was gospel. I pointed out simply that summarily dismissing a study like this is dumb. I do know that this is hardly the only study linking sugar consumption to poor health outcomes, including the PLoS One study that I linked to above, from the Mark Bittman blog post. I also know that the Harvard School of Public Health is not some fly-by-night propaganda mill, but in fact is one of the top research universities in the country.

So I have no idea where people become so convinced that this is a "bogus study" with "crap statistics". But it doesn't seem to be the result of any kind of rational thought process.

[HiPointDem]

62. No one in the general public has read the study. It hasn't been published yet. And people

trained in epidemiology know that epidemiological studies are suggestive rather than confirmatory.

They also know that breathless media reporting typically misrepresents & hypes.

The study was reported at EPI|NPAM 2013, the Epidemiology and Prevention/Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism 2013 Scientific Sessions, and has not yet been published.

[DanTex]

64. Well maybe it would be good to wait then before calling it "bogus" and complaining about the number

of variables? Don't you think?

Oh, and I'll take it that you believe the epidemiological studies linking smoking to lung cancer are merely "suggestive". Right? Or is there something specific about sugar that brings out the hidden denialism?

[HiPointDem]

73. I don't have to wait to call it bogus as this is my field and I understand the methodology from

the brief report.

The only thing that's really at issue is whether it's the media who've hyped the study to lead readers to make certain inferences, or the researchers.

Anyway, you've shown your bias by browbeating posters for not having read the study when you haven't read it yourself. An ignorant tactic & you're not worth my time.

[DanTex]

77. I highly doubt that this is your field. I don't know too many scientists that critique

studies by stating "MORE CRAP STATISTICS TO PUSH POLITICAL AGENDAS".

Maybe if you gave an indication that you have the slightest clue what you are talking about -- I don't know, maybe you could acknowledge that there's more to statistical inference than "correlation is not causation" -- then we could have an intelligent discussion about the merits and drawbacks of the body of research linking sugar consumption to poor health outcomes.

Or else you can keep to your one-sentence all-caps nonsense.

[HiPointDem]

80. in equating sugar with lead you've already shown any such 'discussion' would be a waste of

time.

[DanTex]

87. I drew an analogy, I didn't equate the two.

And it was a useful analogy, although it apparently went right over your head. Maybe if I had used all-caps it would have been easier for you.

[L0oniX]

59. Silly. No death stats are legit unless they are about gun deaths. n/t

[Glassunion]

67. So what?

You want to make an impact, find a cure for birth. Birth is the leading cause of death in the entire world.

I did a study once on a small sample group of the last 200 Million deaths (roughly a 4 year period). As it turned out, they were all inflicted with birth at some point in their development. Some suffered birth after 6 or 7 months, others were inflicted at 9 or ten months.

I have yet to find a study that refutes my findings. It would seem that anyone who at any point in their development, was born, will die. As it turns out, I have yet to find a single patient, who has never suffered birth, so in my morbid conclusion, we will all eventually die.

[HiPointDem]

75. +1. and whether they die of disease at 60 or at 80, the cost in our expensive care regime

is basically the same.

[bighart]

93. Time for a national SIN TAX

just like on tobacco and alcohol. I think $.03 per ounce of sugary drink should be about right.

[Javaman]

98. HFCS.

notice that's not stated in the article.

sugar has been around in it's current form for hundreds of years, yet, it's only in the post wwii era of the world that is suddenly a problem.

I would love to know if the corn industry underwrote this study.

[MrSlayer]

102. 180,000 out of 7,000,000,000 isn't really staggering.

It's not even significant. I don't think this is meaningful in any way.

[Notafraidtoo]

103. processed Sugar is addictive

Because processed sugar is addictive and rewires the brain to cause addiction similar to meth warning parents and stopping schools from serving it to minors is probably a good thing.

As some one who was once obese in my youth my parents had no idea that sugar was addictive or caused chemical resistance in my fat cells that told me i wasn't full,I had to fight this addiction and brain rewiring in my early 20's hardest thing i ever did in my life,I was type 2 at 14 and my brain was constantly telling me to eat something sweet cause my entire diet growing up provided by my parents and school was processed full of sugar junk.

By 22 i was normal weight and healthy but my parents made a mistake its not just willpower,if my parents and school had made proper food choices for me i would not have gone through something that most people are unable to overcome.


As many things on DU i think it has to do with age,older DU members did not have Processed sugar junk as 90% of what they ate growing up provided by their parents, there for they don't get it.


I don't know about you guys but there is so much poison out there and in our products that few of us can know them all,I think its a good thing our government works to not expose us to it,kinda madness to want to be exposed to poison isn't it? (see lead paint and car exhaust) With that said a ban on processed sugar for adults is a bad thing but for children you may be saving their lives and they can make better choices as a adult.