Bottomless fizzy drinks

[TheArtfulDogger]

In France they have just passed a law to ban the sale of bottomless fizzy drinks in restaurants (the so called soda fountains) in a bid to help cut obesity.

Whilst I suspect a few people will be up in arms at this move, far more will support it

The article is here

I wonder if the uk government will consider doing the same as part of its war on sugar and obesity ? I really hope so!

[DuncanW]

I would support that fwiw

[Angelina]

I disagree - I like bottomless drinks in Nandos as otherwise it's quite expensive

[Lowlander]

If I can't have bottomless wine or beer, why should tee-totallers and prohibitionists have a free ride at my expense? Taking the mick. Pay for your drinks like everyone else.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's an irrelevance imo. No one is going to stop being obese because bottomless drinks are prohibited.

[uncleglen]

Too true rah...once those fat cells are there, they will crave and demand to be satiated

[Angelina]

I only have fizzy drinks once in a blue moon and I feel like I'm getting something for free.

but, seriously. It's a great idea. Fizzy drinks are bad for you.

[TheArtfulDogger]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's an irrelevance imo. No one is going to stop

> being obese because bottomless drinks are

> prohibited.

On their own you are correct rah, but as a series of measures to reduce temptation they will.

Fizzy drinks in small quantities aren't a problem but in the sort of quantise that you can get in places like nandos they set up a craving for more as your system becomes used to high levels of carbonated suger

In my opinion banning the unlimited drinks is a first step towards reducing the crisis. Other things could include helping people to cook fresh food more and my favourite, banning ready meals and fast food establishments, but that will never happen

[rendelharris]

Free refills of the diet/sugarfree versions but full charge for the "full fat" versions might be a good incentive.

[numbers]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's an irrelevance imo. No one is going to stop

> being obese because bottomless drinks are

> prohibited.

Exactly this.

[Louisa]

Carbonated sugar based drinks leave you feel disgusting afterwards. Bloated, sick, often dizzy with the sugar rush. This can only be a good thing. These drinks have their place of course, but the days of living of them and finding water disgusting are over. I think most people realise the health benefits of water of these types of drinks, now more than ever before.

Louisa.

[Saffron]

Research suggests that the diet/sugarfree versions are no better than the full-sugar versions. This may be an effect of artificial sweeteners and/or carbonation on metabolism, and this effect is particularly noticeable with fizzy drinks. The same effect is not noted in diabetics using moderate amounts of artificial sweeteners as part of a healthy diet.

[Saffron]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Fizzy drinks in small quantities aren't a problem

> but in the sort of quantise that you can get in

> places like nandos they set up a craving for more

> as your system becomes used to high levels of

> carbonated suger

>

"carbonated sugar"???

To the best of my knowledge carbonated sugar is not a thing. A liquid can be carbonated when gasses are dissolved in it under pressure. Sugar is also dissolved in liquid. The main sugar in many fizzy drinks in fructose. However, the sugar itself is not carbonated. Interestingly though, carbonation may affect how we consume and metabolize sugar.

[Angelina]

Sports drinks are a good alternative to fizzy drinks. They replace minerals your body needs. Fizzy drinks actually change the structure of your cells and cause...among other things..premature ageing

[pablogrande]

FFS another one duped by 'sports' label, these tend to be full of sugar and salt so not a great alternative to drinking fizzy drinks. I'm thinking of bringing out some new supplements 'diet heroin' and 'organic mdma' form an orderly queue

[Loz]

Angelina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sports drinks are a good alternative to fizzy drinks. They replace minerals your body needs.

> Fizzy drinks actually change the structure of your cells and cause...among other things..premature

> ageing

I was sceptical of this (especially considering the nonsense written about Aspartame), but a bit of googling pointed me to https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/oct/16/sugar-soft-drinks-dna-ageing-study. From there I went onto the actual study which summarises:

After adjustment for sociodemographic and health-related characteristics, sugar-sweetened soda consumption was associated with shorter telomeres (b = ?0.010; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.020, −0.001; P = .04). Consumption of 100% fruit juice was marginally associated with longer telomeres (b = 0.016; 95% CI = −0.000, 0.033; P = .05). No significant associations were observed between consumption of diet sodas or noncarbonated SSBs and telomere length.

It is a interesting summary. There doesn't seem to be a single obvious cause of this. Sugar - nope as non-carbonated sugar-sweetened beverages didn't have the same result. Fizziness (CO2) - nope as diet sodas didn't have the same result.

Personally, I wouldn't conclude one way or the other until further studies are done.

[Loz]

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Research suggests that the diet/sugarfree versions are no better than the full-sugar

> versions. This may be an effect of artificial sweeteners and/or carbonation on

> metabolism, and this effect is particularly noticeable with fizzy drinks. The same

> effect is not noted in diabetics using moderate amounts of artificial sweeteners

> as part of a healthy diet.

Source? Can't find anything on this that isn't on some barmy 'health' site.

There was a study where they showed that people who drink diet drinks tend to eat more than people who drink sugary drinks or water (suspected to be caused by the sweetener telling the body to expect calories that never come). But you couldn't lead to a conclusion that diet/sugarfree versions are thus 'no better' than the full-sugar versions.

[Loz]

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The main sugar in many fizzy drinks in fructose.

That's true in the US, but not so in the UK.

[Saffron]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Saffron Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The main sugar in many fizzy drinks in fructose.

>

>

> That's true in the US, but not so in the UK.

That's why I wrote 'many', not 'most' or 'all'. In general the main sugars used in [british] soft drinks are sucrose, glucose, and fructose. However, when acids are included (often added as preservatives or flavour enhancers), acids can cause hydrolysis of sucrose to glucose and fructose. In addition, the amount of added sugar in the same brand of drink varies depending on where they're marketed internationally.

While high fructose corn syrup may be particularly problematic (though I'm not aware of a scientific consensus either way), the over-consumption of sugar in any form is detrimental to health. xx

[Saffron]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Saffron Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Research suggests that the diet/sugarfree

> versions are no better than the full-sugar

> > versions. This may be an effect of artificial

> sweeteners and/or carbonation on

> > metabolism, and this effect is particularly

> noticeable with fizzy drinks. The same

> > effect is not noted in diabetics using moderate

> amounts of artificial sweeteners

> > as part of a healthy diet.

>

> Source? Can't find anything on this that isn't on

> some barmy 'health' site.

>

> There was a study where they showed that people

> who drink diet drinks tend to eat more than people

> who drink sugary drinks or water (suspected to be

> caused by the sweetener telling the body to expect

> calories that never come). But you couldn't lead

> to a conclusion that diet/sugarfree versions are

> thus 'no better' than the full-sugar versions.

Sorry, Loz, it's not like me not to put a citation, but I'm very over-stretched with work at present. :( I'll endeavor to make a short general response, and maybe you can come back with some more specific questions if anything is not clear. :)

'No better', as in--> excessive consumption of sugar-free (artificially sweetened) drinks is no better than excessive consumption of full-sugar drinks, i.e. they are both associated with negative health outcomes. Therefore incentivising the consumption of artificially sweetened drinks over full-sugar drinks by means of a selective tax on full-sugar drinks is not likely to be a wildly successful strategy for tackling obesity and metabolic disease.

Not sure what databases or terminology you're using? There is quite a lot of pre-clinical (in vivo and in vitro) and clinical research in this area.

With regards to the mechanism you mentioned above there have been numerous studies looking at the effects of sweet-tasting non-caloric drinks. Such drinks appear to interfere with the normal glucose-energy homeostatic response, leading to metabolic 'derangements' (Swithers, Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism 2013).

This area of research is known as 'neurobiology of food reward'. Most (probably all) of the clinical research is correlative, rather than causative. However, the outcomes are no less real. Consumption of artificial sweeteners in low- or no-calorie drinks is associated with a dose-related increase in weight. That is, the more consumed, the more weight gained. Furthermore, interventional research has observed that using a replacement strategy (using artificially sweetened fizzy drinks to replace sugar-sweetened drinks) does not lead to weight loss. However, results can be variable depending on the population studied, for example overweight, morbidly obese, or metabolically compromised, suggesting that a combination of metabolism and personal perception of food reward have a complex interaction. (Yang, Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 2010).

One of the more recent findings is that artificial sweeteners affect the gut microbiome, causing metabolic disturbances in mice (Suez et al, Nature 2014), although the same link in humans has not yet been confirmed.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/abs/nature13793.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043276013000878

http://www.haadi.ir/Upload/Image/2016/09/Orginal/57265ef1_a01d_4526_b45e_bab3d34c2c8b.pdf

So, those are just a few examples. For anyone who is interested, it's easy to find more. Use Google Scholar or PubMed with some key words from the articles to find additional papers in this field of research.

Hope that helps! xx

[Henry_17]

Saff,

It's Sunday and therefore unreasonable to expect people to read all that. Is the point just that troughers continue to trough elsewhere when the carbs are removed from their favourite fizzy tipple, or is there something more nefarious whereby sweeteners have harmful physiological effects which carbs don't?

[Loz]

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'No better', as in--> excessive consumption of sugar-free (artificially sweetened) drinks is no

> better than excessive consumption of full-sugar drinks, i.e. they are both associated with

> negative health outcomes.

Ah, I think this is where we differ. To me that is like saying 'being hit by a car travelling at 20mph is no better than being hit by one at 80mph, as they both result in negative health outcomes'! I understand that there are ongoing studies into both artificial sweeteners and sugar and they are discovering some interesting stuff, but I just can't equate the two in terms of 'badness'.

But, really interesting links, though my lack of a clinical education in the area means I don't generally get past abstracts in most of the proper papers. The article in last of your links was really rather readable, though.

[Cardelia]

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To the best of my knowledge carbonated sugar is

> not a thing. A liquid can be carbonated when

> gasses are dissolved in it under pressure. Sugar

> is also dissolved in liquid. The main sugar in

> many fizzy drinks in fructose. However, the sugar

> itself is not carbonated. Interestingly though,

> carbonation may affect how we consume and

> metabolize sugar.

Just as a side note, it is possible to carbonate sugars i.e. form sugar-based compounds which have a carbonate functional group attached. However this is getting into the deeper realms of organic chemistry so is merely of academic interest because carbonated sugars are not an ingredient in fizzy drinks.

[Saffron]

> Just as a side note, it is possible to carbonate

> sugars i.e. form sugar-based compounds which have

> a carbonate functional group attached. However

> this is getting into the deeper realms of organic

> chemistry so is merely of academic interest

> because carbonated sugars are not an ingredient in

> fizzy drinks.

Oh fascinating! Does that result in anything edible or just lab-worthy? I love the Forum. :)

[Saffron]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Saffron Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > 'No better', as in--> excessive consumption of

> sugar-free (artificially sweetened) drinks is no

> > better than excessive consumption of full-sugar

> drinks, i.e. they are both associated with

> > negative health outcomes.

>

> Ah, I think this is where we differ. To me that

> is like saying 'being hit by a car travelling at

> 20mph is no better than being hit by one at 80mph,

> as they both result in negative health outcomes'!

> I understand that there are ongoing studies into

> both artificial sweeteners and sugar and they are

> discovering some interesting stuff, but I just

> can't equate the two in terms of 'badness'.

>

> But, really interesting links, though my lack of a

> clinical education in the area means I don't

> generally get past abstracts in most of the proper

> papers. The article in last of your links was

> really rather readable, though.

I think unfortunately the picture that's starting to emerge is that the knock-on health effects of excessive consumption of either are equally bad, though the mechanisms may be very, very different. But this is not really surprising because excessive consumption of anything is going to end up somewhere bad. (Likewise moderate consumption of either sugar or sugar-substitutes is widely understood to be safe.) In excess consumption of artificially sweetened drinks, clinical research has focused on over-compensatory eating, but preclinical research suggests a wide variety of cellular mechanisms may be affected by artificial sweeteners. http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_3-1-2017-16-59-3

I have the terrible suspicion that marketing strategists would like people to think that artificial sweeteners are a better alternative than sugar, to boost their falling sales. I'm not sure about the current UK situation, but globally full-sugar and artificial-sugar drinks are marketed, and regulated differently. So, it's in the interest of companies to create an image that no-calorie drinks are a 'better' alternative, where marketing them as such would be to their advantage.

However, the backlash against artificial sweeteners has meant that some companies are now apparently returning to sucrose. http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/06/02/both-natural-and-artificial-sweeteners-aim-to-uplift-diet-soda-volumes/#4d9d98b84454

On a slightly tangential note, if you want to avoid fizzy drinks... This cocktail tastes like Coke, but it contains no fizzy drinks. ;-) It's called 'The Pledge'.

1 shot of Benedictine

1 shot of sweet sherry

top up with oatmeal stout

sprinkle with nutmeg

serve chilled

Weird, huh? xx