Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is the Can Worse Than the Soda?

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the drink-slurm-it's-highly-addictive dept.

Medicine 388

DevotedSkeptic sends this excerpt about research that found a correlation between the use of a common food-packaging chemical and obesity rates. "Since the 1960s, manufacturers have widely used the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) in plastics and food packaging. Only recently, though, have scientists begun thoroughly looking into how the compound might affect human health—and what they've found has been a cause for concern. Starting in 2006, a series of studies, mostly in mice, indicated that the chemical might act as an endocrine disruptor (by mimicking the hormone estrogen), cause problems during development and potentially affect the reproductive system, reducing fertility. After a 2010 Food and Drug Administration report warned that the compound could pose an especially hazardous risk for fetuses, infants and young children, BPA-free water bottles and food containers started flying off the shelves. In July, the FDA banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups, but the chemical is still present in aluminum cans, containers of baby formula and other packaging materials. Now comes another piece of data on a potential risk from BPA but in an area of health in which it has largely been overlooked: obesity. A study by researchers from New York University, published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, looked at a sample of nearly 3,000 children and teens across the country and found a 'significant' link between the amount of BPA in their urine and the prevalence of obesity."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Silly (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393197)

BPA or not, there is probably a significant link between teens who drink a lot of soda and those that don't. Maybe this obvious correlation is not causation issue is covered in the full publication (I only read the excerpt)... but if not, this is pretty damn stupid.

There is probably a significant link between the number of fast food wrappers scattered around someones home and obesity, but that doesn't mean the ink in the paper is to blame.

At the absolute minimum, "worse than the soda" is pretty unlikely. Soda is definitely bad for you, whereas BPA _might_ be bad young children and infants.

And in general, I think while environmental factors do probably contribute in a small way to obesity, it seems silly to worry about these things when the real causes are pretty damn obvious: eating wrong and getting no exercise. That bit o` BPA you drank probably made no difference, but your lifestyle of sitting in a chair all day at the office, then going home and sitting on a different chair until bed while eating a whopper probably made a huge difference.

Re:Silly (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393295)

Let's assume BPA is bad. The question is, is it worse than no BPA? The reasons cans are lined with plastic are to prevent botulism and to keep the contents from eating through the cans.

Really, though, there's no reason we need to keep doing this. Just switch everything back to glass. The occasional shattering bottle is probably less of a danger to society than the constant poisoning through food and drinks.

Re:Silly (5, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393341)

The question is, is it worse than no BPA? The reasons cans are lined with plastic are to prevent botulism and to keep the contents from eating through the cans.

Or, you know, we could be lining our canned food items with something that's safe.

Re:Silly (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393403)

Any suggestions? Since you're obviously a materials and food science expert, I mean.

Re:Silly (1)

Brian Feldman (350) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393415)

Beeswax.

Re:Silly (5, Funny)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393547)

glass

Re:Silly (1)

locopuyo (1433631) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393657)

They make BPA free plastic.

Re:Silly (5, Insightful)

Chuckstar (799005) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394023)

BPA-free plastic has other chemicals that replace the functionality of BPA. We know less about those chemicals than we do about BPA. Pick your poison.

Re:Silly (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393777)

Up until the late 1970s cans had a corrosion-resistant liner made from wax. This was replaced by bpa-based lacquers - I worked for a coatings vendor at this time who watched their business disappear due to this shift. Wax coatings were sprayed in just before the product, the BPA finish went on at the coil plant or can maker. To some extent it just pushed the liability upstream. The coatings we made we resistant to pretty much everything outside of aromatic solvents and heat. Depressing to see that what replaced them leeched chemicals into the food. Guess this is our version of the roman lead cooking pots.

Re:Silly (4, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393435)

Let's assume BPA is bad. The question is, is it worse than no BPA? The reasons cans are lined with plastic are to prevent botulism and to keep the contents from eating through the cans.

Really, though, there's no reason we need to keep doing this. Just switch everything back to glass. The occasional shattering bottle is probably less of a danger to society than the constant poisoning through food and drinks.

Not to mention, things just plain taste better when coming from a glass container.

Yes, I know that's entirely anecdotal, but instead of having your normal, knee-jerk reaction of pointing out the obvious, I implore the /. audience to go get a can of your favorite soda, and a glass bottle of the same, and do your own taste test.

Re:Silly (4, Interesting)

platypusfriend (1956218) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393509)

Beer tastes better from a can, by a lot. The seal of the metal cap on a glass bottle is inferior to the metal-on-metal seal of a can. So, in addition to less UV radiation (fluorescent lights, Sun) reaching the isomerized hop alpha acids through the glass of a bottle, a metal can just plain ol' keeps more oxygen out. And that helps keep your beer fresh. Don't just take my word for it, though!.. Try a blind can-vs-bottle test, of the exact same beers, for yourself. It's really interesting.

Re:Silly (2, Insightful)

Brian Feldman (350) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393529)

What "beer" can you get in both a bottle or a can?

Re:Silly (1)

s2jcpete (989386) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393667)

Modelo Especial

Re:Silly (1)

shiftless (410350) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393827)

....which is amazing in glass. Never seen it in a can though.

Re:Silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393673)

Guinness. Boddy's. A ton of others.

Sure, you're not going to find BEERHIPSTERGRUBEN HOPPENDOUCHEZEL in distributed in both bottle and can, but you're a tool if you think solid beer isn't available in can form.

Re:Silly (5, Funny)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393751)

...you're a tool if you think solid beer isn't available in can form.

It's only solid if it's frozen. I prefer my beer in a liquid state, thanks.

Re:Silly (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393939)

Hipster is such a hipster word.

Re:Silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393963)

My local bottle shop [belmont-station.com] does carry BEERHIPSTERGRUBEN HOPPENDOUCHEZEL in cans. Hell, even my local Kroger carries New Belgium, 21st Amendment, Sierra Nevada, and several others. It's great for whitewater rafting trips when glass just isn't practical.

Re:Silly (3, Informative)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393683)

Sierra Nevada Pale Ale:

This isn't a Bud:
http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/sierra-nevada-pale-ale-bottle-can/365/ [ratebeer.com]

And recently, it's being sold in bottles and cans -- I've seen it my local supermarkets:
http://www.craftcans.com/sierra-nevada-pale-alesierra-nevada-brewing-company [craftcans.com]

Re:Silly (2)

rednip (186217) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393759)

Plenty, but you might have to look a little as few retailers even have the space to sell both for anything but some domestics. Often the good beers are only sold in cans in places or near them, that prohibit glass containers but allow alcohol.

It's true that light and air are among the worst enemies of liquid bread and that canned is considered 'better' by a certain crowd. However, one could argue that a bottled beer is kept in the dark both in it's package and in the fridge. Also the cap isn't really that bad, there is a vacuum seal, that you even hear released, just like you do in a can. If drinking a beer I'd typically order a bottle if given a chance, however, BPA does worry me some, so I think I'd be sticking more closely to bottles the rare times that I drink beer.

You'd think that for something like infant formula bottles and such they'd use 'tried and tested' materials, if only for liability issues.

Re:Silly (4, Informative)

BetterSense (1398915) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393907)

Shiner Bock
Heineken

Re:Silly (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393921)

Caldera, Hopworks, New Belgium, Hop Valley, Paulaner, Sierra Nevada, Pabst...

Re:Silly (2)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393929)

Guinness.

But if you must get guinness that isn't on tap, the bottle does a better job because of the rocket widget....

Re:Silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393957)

Pretty much any domestic beer.
Domestics no good? New Belgium & O'Dells
No micros? Heineken, Labatt, Modelo

Re:Silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41394115)

Heineken, Labatt, and Modelo are perfect examples of beers that are NOT micros. The low volume microbrew process is not going to have expensive aluminum canning equipment instead of simple glass bottling.

Re:Silly (1)

Sinryc (834433) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394019)

Many diffrent kinds. New Belgium Fat Tire, Sierra Nevada Torpedo, Abita Amber or Purple Haze, Long Trail Ale, Harpoon IPA, Paulaner Hefeweizen... and that i just to name a few.

Re:Silly (3, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393565)

Sorry, but no. Canned beer is worse than bottled beer is worse than tap beer.

Re:Silly (1)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393931)

Not true at all.

The key is that the canned beer has to be poured into a glass (the can taste is all because your bare lip is touching freshly sheared aluminum). What do you think a keg is if it isn't a big can? You can get many great beers in cans and I find I prefer them...recently I have had several beers from Surly, an IPA from Two Brothers, and many cans of 312 from Goose Island. The latter is the only one I can do a comparison on (the other two are fantastic, but unavailable in bottles) and I think a can of 312 poured into a glass tastes noticeably fresher than a bottle of 312 poured into a glass. Maybe not if they were both just bottled/canned today--but you take something that has sat around at a store for a while and the cans win.

Re:Silly (1)

tsotha (720379) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393651)

The problem is aluminum has an unpleasant taste, so even if what you say is true, it only matters if you pour your beer into a glass before you drink it.

Re:Silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393961)

You get your beer out quicker if you don't stick your tongue in the mouth of the can...

Re:Silly (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394083)

Oh sweet jesus, are you crazy? I've done the test -- I'd just flown in for a job interview, I'd already gotten lost trying to find the hotel, it was late, and I was from a state that didn't usually allow beer sales in gas stations...so while I was picking up my gas station dinner, I figured 'fuck it I'll get a bigass can of beer!'...got a Yuengling Lager, which is far from my favorite beer but certainly drinkable in a bottle...in the can it was quite possibly the worst beer I've ever had.

There's a reason REAL beer isn't sold in cans....mostly just the American pisswater brews.

Re:Silly (1)

Translation Error (1176675) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393793)

Let's assume BPA is bad. The question is, is it worse than no BPA?

Well, gee, maybe someone should do some research on the subject.

Re:Silly (4, Interesting)

AuralityKev (1356747) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393319)

I'd also like to see the stats on HFCS/sugar ratio in sodas from the 1960's to now graphed right alongside the BPA situation. Have the sodas themselves changed over time? I'd think that would have much more of an impact, along with sitting in a chair all day and eating whoppers.

Re:Silly (2)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393365)

Even if they started using cane sugar rather than HFCS, it might make a difference.

I blame the prevelance of really shitty food and the difficulty of finding decent food more than the packaging it comes in.

Re:Silly (5, Insightful)

rednip (186217) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393883)

When I was a kid, the McDonald's large was the size of their smallest adult cup today, and the largest sandwich you could buy was a single quarter pound of meat.

Re:Silly (1)

Chuckstar (799005) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394043)

And that original iconic Coca-Cola bottle was 8 ounces.

Reviewers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393447)

Damn straight!

I suggest you send a strongly worded letter to those dolts at JAMA and set them straight for letting this trash get into their fine journal!

And of course you're more than qualified to critique because you are a Slashdotter! An AC no less!

Re:Silly (2)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393489)

Quote from TFA:

The finding is only a correlation between the amount of BPA in the body and obesity, rather than evidence that one causes the other.

Re:Silly (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393567)

At the absolute minimum, "worse than the soda" is pretty unlikely.

"Worse than the soda" actually isn't unlikely. Hormonal imbalances are a major cause of weight gain. If your hormones are significantly out of balance, you aren't going to achieve a healthy weight even if you practically starve yourself.

Also, soda is arguably one of the least significant sources of BPA in people's diet. Most people don't drink from cans all that often; they drink soda from 2-liter bottles (which do not contain BPA), from soda fountain tanks (which AFAIK are not lined with BPA), etc.

The average person is exposed to BPA from many, many other sources—canned foods, plastic tupperware dishes (particularly while reheating food in them), dental fillings and sealants, reusable plastic water bottles of all types, the ink used on newspapers and many cash register receipts, and so on.

Besides, it is straightforward to compensate for any bias in the data caused by the tiny portion of BPA that comes from people's soda drinking habits.

Re:Silly (-1, Flamebait)

shiftless (410350) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393857)

Hormonal imbalances are a major cause of weight gain. If your hormones are significantly out of balance, you aren't going to achieve a healthy weight even if you practically starve yourself.

Actual "hormone imbalances" are rare. In the U.S., "hormone imbalance" is nothing more than an excuse for fat asses to excuse themselves for not getting off their fat asses and stop stuffing their faces with food. Funny, I spent a year overseas interacting with many people from many countries. Every time you saw a fat ass, guess what their nationality is? White, pasty American. Never once saw an Afghan or an Estonian with a "hormone imbalance."

Re:Silly (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393967)

Do they use BPA laden can liners in Estonia and Afghanistan?

Re:Silly (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394121)

If your hormones are significantly out of balance, you aren't going to achieve a healthy weight even if you practically starve yourself.

PLUS ONE for this.

Anyone who has a medical condition treated by large (relative to normal levels) steroid doses on an ongoing basis will tell you this.

Re:Silly (5, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393593)

Soda in general is absolutely horrible. I've never really been very much overweight, but at one point I got up there enough to decide that I wanted to lose some weight. The first thing I did was cut my soda intake from whenever I felt like it down to "merely" twice a day. I lost ten pounds in just two or three weeks and the weight stayed off. I also cut down on other things afterward, but the weight never came off as fast as it did after first regulating my soda intake.

Having managed to successfully lose weight when I wanted to without resorting to salads or some special food, the secret to pure weight loss is simply not eating more calories than you need for the day. That's it. As long as you actually do it, as opposed to thinking that eating a gallon of "low fat" ice cream is going to make you lose weight, you always lose weight. There are days it spikes up and down, but if you maintain it day after day, you make steady progress.

Things like BPA or certain types of food are really only going to be corner cases. Your body cannot store fat from nowhere. If your body uses up all the calories ingested for that day for energy and then some, you will either lose fat or at the very least, you won't have much to make fat from. Endocrine problems are going to be an issue, but even if your body stores extra fat, it gets used up with normal daily exertion, and even more with exercise. You may never be thin, but you're not going to be obese.

Now, the major problem with things like soda isn't that it is soda, it's that it is a high calorie beverage that gives you zero nutritional value. That means to get proteins and nutrients, you have to eat other things which also have calories and you will become hungry for those things because your body won't allow you to fall over dead without letting you know something is missing. You get fat from soda because you have to eat other things with it. That goes even for diet soda (to a lesser extent). It also goes for anything that is high density fat/carbs, but lacks nutrition you need.

So, if BPA has made an epidemic of anything, I'd say it was more like an epidemic of being "slightly chubby", but not one of obesity.

Re:Silly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393863)

Now, the major problem with things like soda isn't that it is soda, it's that it is a high calorie beverage that gives you zero nutritional value.

No, the problem with soda is that it's carbonated. Ever tried to drink a "flat" soda? It's so damn sweet it's undrinkable -- Carbonation helps get the enormous amounts of sugar down your throat. Oh, there's also the Caffeine, and addictive substance that the government demanded cola companies remove along with cocaine, they said they'd give up the cocaine but not the caffeine. So, is the problem that it's high calorie, or in a contaminate rich bottle? Fuck no, it's an habit forming drink we give to children. The problem isn't with the beverage, really -- It's with the Corporations you let rule the world.

Re:Silly (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393983)

Ever try to drink a plain seltzer water? Sugar helps get the enormous amounts of dry nastiness down your throat.

Analogously, I doubt that either Lye or Muriatic acid would taste very good on their own, but together they make an excellent seasoning for a variety of dishes.

Peanut butter and Chocolate on the other hand are the exception to this rule.

Re:Silly (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393985)

The counter to that is that I went from 2 liters a day to none at all (I don't even like the taste now) and.....nothing changed.

Re:Silly (2)

dinfinity (2300094) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393669)

BPA or not, there is probably a significant link between teens who drink a lot of soda and those that don't. Maybe this obvious correlation is not causation issue is covered in the full publication (I only read the excerpt)... but if not, this is pretty damn stupid.

Yep. From the abstract: "Controlling for race/ethnicity, age, caregiver education, poverty to income ratio, sex, serum cotinine level, caloric intake, television watching, and urinary creatinine level, children in the lowest urinary BPA quartile had a lower estimated prevalence of obesity".

So apparently they haven't controlled for the soda (or sugar) intake. On the other hand, I'd expect that to be correlated to a number of the factors they did control for.

Re:Silly (5, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393817)

And in general, I think while environmental factors do probably contribute in a small way to obesity, it seems silly to worry about these things when the real causes are pretty damn obvious: eating wrong and getting no exercise.

Oh boy, thanks for sharing your tremendously valuable Common Sense with us.

In fact this study is shocking and here is why (in bold):

The researchers pulled data from the 2003 to 2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, and after controlling for differences in ethnicity, age, caregiver education, income level, sex, caloric intake, television viewing habits and other factors, they found that children and adolescents with the highest levels of BPA in their urine had a 2.6 times greater chance of being obese than those with the lowest levels. Overall, 22.3 percent of those in the quartile with the highest levels of BPA were obese, compared with just 10.3 percent of those in the quartile with the lowest levels of BPA.

So here is what I pull from the emphasized bits:

  • No, it is not explained by caloric intake. Nor by physical activity (or at least a proxy for it).
  • The effect size is enormous. A 160% increase in risk of obesity!
  • The sample size is large: 10.3% and 22.3% are both relatively large proportions of subjects in the study. So this is almost certainly not a spurious correlation between rare events.

The idea of significantly impacting the obesity epidemic simply by replacing BPA with something else is hard to believe. But occasionally a technical breakthrough on what was previously considered an issue of character and morality does does occur, and can be revolutionary: consider birth control.

Re:Silly (3, Insightful)

Chuckstar (799005) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394093)

It's hard to control for caloric intake. You're relying on people self-reporting.

Also, contrary to popular myth, all calories are not the same. Your body absorbs much more energy from 100 calories of sugar, for example, than it does from 100 calories of raw vegetables. This is because calorie content is based on laboratory measurements and does not factor in calories lost when food is harder to digest, or when food is not fully digested (in which case the energy is instead absorbed/used by bacteria in the colon).

Re:Silly (1)

mcneely.mike (927221) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393835)

Yes... when i was a kid, we used to get a treat of one or two 'Pop Shoppe' bottles of pop (probably around 500ml) a week. The rest of the time we were mostly drinking juice or water.

Now you see the 'fatties' loading up with case aftere case of pop (even the cancer causing diet pop seems to not help them lose weight) and people drink 6+ cans a day,
"I wonder why i'm fat?"
Also, "I'm fat, and i drink a lot of pop, and the pop has BPA in it and so does my pee: therefore (and ergo) I am fat, not because i drink a lot of pop: I am fat because of the BPA that i just happen to be consuming a whole lot of! It's not my fault, its the BPA's! When they get the BPA-free pop cans, I'll lose weight!"

SIMPLE! :)

Re:Silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41394011)

Hey brainiac, have you heard of sugar-free soda?

Re:Silly (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394013)

What if the BPA leads to sitting at home, eating more, less exercise, etc etc. Could be a feedback loop.

We already know soda drinkers are fat (5, Insightful)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393213)

Everyone on /. already knows correlation != causation. People that drink 2L bottles of soda on a regular basis are going to high higher BPA and higher obesity.

Re:We already know soda drinkers are fat (1)

Bob-taro (996889) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393241)

Everyone on /. already knows correlation != causation. People that drink 2L bottles of soda on a regular basis are going to high higher BPA and higher obesity.

Actually, that might be a good test - is there a stronger correlation between obesity and cans than 2L bottles?

Beer Drinkers? (1)

Memophage (88273) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393561)

Similarly, is there any statistically significant weight difference between people who drink beer from cans vs. glass bottles?

Re:We already know soda drinkers are fat (1)

Antony T Curtis (89990) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393309)

Actually, what they are implying is that people who drink 2L of soda from cans daily will be in a worse state than those who drink 2L of the same soda daily from plastic BPA-free bottles.

Some individuals would probably be just fine drinking 2L of sugar soda from plastic bottles if they're active enough to burn off the extra calories.

2L soda = 800 calories (2)

jeko (179919) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393671)

Two liters of soda carries in the neighborhood of 800 calories. The usual number quoted is that running burns about 100-120 calories per mile. Roughly speaking, you're gonna pay for that two-liter soda with a seven mile run.

Need to gain weight fast? One pound of fat = 3500 extra calories. Roughly, eight or nine liters or four six-packs (22 cans) of soda equal one pound. Drink a six-pack a day and you'll be a pound, pound and a half heavier by the end of the week. You'll be four or five pounds overweight by the end of the month. You can be grossly clinically obese by the end of the year, simply from drinking soda alone.

Now, yeah, I get personal freedom and, no, we shouldn't ban bacon and candy, but I have a lot of sympathy for the noise coming out of New York about banning soda. I was raised to think soda was basically "Water Plus," and the Coca Cola Company spent billions programming me to think "Coke Is It." I mean, good grief, we literally get our picture of Santa Claus from a Coca Cola ad, so deep is soda ingrained in American culture.

It took a ridiculous amount of effort as an adult to look at a can of soda and link that to feeling bad from poor health. It was ridiculous how hard it was to teach myself that I should look at a can of Coke and a cigarette the same way, since both would have roughly comparable deleterious effects on my health.

Some individuals would probably be just fine drinking 2L of sugar soda from plastic bottles if they're active enough to burn off the extra calories.

No one, nobody, is going to stay fine if they're drinking two liters of soda a day.

Re:We already know soda drinkers are fat (1)

leppi (207894) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393687)

Well, "be just fine" is relative I think. That is a ton of sugar, like 7-8 times the US recommended limit. Horrible for your teeth, contains no nutritional value, other than hydration, robs you of opportunities to eat foods that are actually good for you. So you consume 800 calories of pure sugar a day, that would either make you fat, or eliminate 800 other calories from your diet. which is a lot!!! like as much as a big steak.

Depending on your gender it is around half of your recommended healthy intake (even for active individuals).

Re:We already know soda drinkers are fat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393757)

Hydration doesn't even factor in, with the quantities of salt used in most soda.

Re:We already know soda drinkers are fat (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394025)

zero grams of salt is a pretty small amount..

Perhaps you are thinking of sports drinks.

Re:We already know soda drinkers are fat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393725)

They didn't adjust for sugar intake. They adjusted for calorie intake, but that's not the same. The study shows what they adjusted for:

Controlling for race/ethnicity, age, caregiver education, poverty to income ratio, sex, serum cotinine level, caloric intake, television watching, and urinary creatinine level, children in the lowest urinary BPA quartile had a lower estimated prevalence of obesity (10.3% [95% CI, 7.5%-13.1%]) than those in quartiles 2 (20.1% [95% CI, 14.5%-25.6%]), 3 (19.0% [95% CI, 13.7%-24.2%]), and 4 (22.3% [95% CI, 16.6%-27.9%])

Re:We already know soda drinkers are fat (4, Informative)

reverseengineer (580922) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393421)

Well, they shouldn't, if they're drinking out of 2L bottles, most of which are polyethylene terephthalate and generally do not contain BPA, which is why the focus here is on the epoxy liners of many aluminum cans. They did try to control for caloric intake in the study:

Controlling for race/ethnicity, age, caregiver education, poverty to income ratio, sex, serum cotinine level, caloric intake, television watching, and urinary creatinine level, children in the lowest urinary BPA quartile had a lower estimated prevalence of obesity (10.3% [95% CI, 7.5%-13.1%]) than those in quartiles 2 (20.1% [95% CI, 14.5%-25.6%]), 3 (19.0% [95% CI, 13.7%-24.2%]), and 4 (22.3% [95% CI, 16.6%-27.9%]).

However, they also admit in the conclusions, "Explanations of the association cannot rule out the possibility that obese children ingest food with higher BPA content or have greater adipose stores of BPA."

Re:We already know soda drinkers are fat (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393495)

At what point in time do you actually stop and think instead of regurgitating the same old, tired like "correlation != causation".

CO2 => Global Warning correlation != causation!!

Lower work ethic => Lower wages correlation != causation!!

chemicals => cancer correlation != causation!!

Posting mindless correlation != causation on slashdot => stupid !!!

Do some research once in a while.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesogen [wikipedia.org]

Everyone knows calories in - calories out > 0 tends to build up fat. But Obesogens fuck up with the metabolic system such that the body will build NEW fat cells much more readily. And no, higher BPA amount != more fat. It has been shown that the relationship is NOT linear. Smaller dosages result in more fat subjects than with high BPA levels.

So you can have exact clones, raised in same environment, fed the same food. If you give one group a little bit of obesogens, they can get very obese while the group without obesogens would not be fat. Heck, a group with tons of obesogens would not get fat too because of negative feedback loop that does not happen at low levels. That's how research is done. No one goes around like a retard with a "correlation implies causation" mindset. They actually test it in the lab if it is causation.

Re:We already know soda drinkers are fat (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393971)

well if that was true, then why are so many studies (or the articles posted about them anyway) LOADED with broken correlation? The only answer that makes sense is that many of the authors are ideologically/politically obsessed about some action (seems like soda is a current target considering the stupidity in NY), so they sprinkle it with some badly manipulated stats and serve it up as 'research.' Even under the rare instances the actual studies are sound, the articles themselves often are not. The frequency of this rubbish is why people knee jerk with 'correlation is not causation.' Most of the time it's right on target.

Re:We already know soda drinkers are fat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393533)

People that drink 2L bottles of soda on a regular basis are going to high higher BPA and higher obesity.

You don't think the researchers thought of that? They needed the help of a slashdot user? I mean this is just from the summary you can view for free and not even the full article: "Controlling for race/ethnicity, age, caregiver education, poverty to income ratio, sex, serum cotinine level, caloric intake, television watching, and urinary creatinine level, children in the lowest urinary BPA quartile had a lower estimated prevalence of obesity"

Re:We already know soda drinkers are fat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393557)

Everyone on /. already knows correlation != causation.

People that drink 2L bottles of soda on a regular basis are going to high higher BPA and higher obesity.

Occam's Razor: The scientists who conducted this study simply don't understand such a complicated concept, nor do to the reviewers in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Or they do.

Re:We already know soda drinkers are fat (1)

Nittle (1356899) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393695)

This should be fairly easy if you start looking at diet soda drinkers. There are few calories in diet soda.

Obvious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393223)

In other news, the AMA found a 'significant' link between the calories consumed per day and the prevalence of obesity.

BPA just has correlation with the packaging of bad food, not with causing the problem itself.

link between BPA and obesity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393225)

Maybe the link is there because eating lot's of sweets, and drinking lots of soda, both of which are stored in containers with BPA, makes you fat?

Correlation is not causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393229)

Perhaps the BPA is from the containers of all the sugary drinks they consume...

I KNEW IT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393281)

The reason why I have a 4 incher is because of all those chemicals, not genes. Or else I wouldn't even be here!

Amount in urine (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393291)

The studies that look at the mount of BPA in urine drive me crazy. They take a group of people, give them some food or liquid with BPA, then freak out when it's in their urine.

I'll let you in on a little secret here: humans have the ability to excrete BPA. Mice do not. All those studies that show health issues in mice from BPA ingestion are testing on creatures that cannot rid their bodies of the compound.

Re:Amount in urine (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393457)

I'll let you in on a little secret here: women excrete oral contraceptives [wikipedia.org] and yet they appear to function just fine between the time they're taken and the time they're pissed out.

Just remember, 40 years ago we started loading up little boys with female hormones. Now they're marrying each other.

Re:Amount in urine (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393839)

I'll let you in on a little secret here: women excrete oral contraceptives [wikipedia.org] and yet they appear to function just fine between the time they're taken and the time they're pissed out.

If you've ever lived with a woman who's taken BC, you would know that your preceding statement is flatly false. A woman will end up trying several different types of BC, finding one that doesn't cause weight gain / lack of desire / batshit insanity / skin breakouts / dry skin / hair falling out / BEARDO TAKE OUT THE FUCKING GARBAGE syndrome / etc

Just remember, 40 years ago we started loading up little boys with female hormones. Now they're marrying each other.

Homosexuals have been around forever, and will be around forever. Hormones in the drink containers didn't give the Victorians / Romans / Greeks / Neanderthals / etc the idea. It's just a different way of wiring up your preferences.

Re:Amount in urine (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394045)

If you've ever lived with a woman who's taken BC, you would know that your preceding statement is flatly false. A woman will end up trying several different types of BC, finding one that doesn't cause weight gain / lack of desire / batshit insanity / skin breakouts / dry skin / hair falling out / BEARDO TAKE OUT THE FUCKING GARBAGE syndrome / etc

Exactly. That's true i spite of women excreting the contraceptives. So excreting a substance isn't the same as being unaffected by it.

Re:Amount in urine (5, Interesting)

kEnder242 (262421) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393585)

I googled something and found something that disputes your claim that

humans have the ability to excrete BPA. Mice do not.

http://healthandenvironmentonline.com/issue-archive/bpa-science-safety-1/ [healthande...online.com]

Slashdot: A mix between a peer review journal and "bum fights"

Correllation? Causation? (1)

skine (1524819) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393313)

Did they control for soft drink intake, or did they just compare BPA levels to obesity?

I mean, it seems like drinking more soda would increase both BPA and obesity, while switching to glass containers isn't going to stop someone from being obese if they drink enough.

Re:Correllation? Causation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393611)

According to the article, they controlled for caloric intake, among many other things.
So the article seems to be saying that, all other things being equal, BPA in your urine correlates to obesity.

They admit that it may be the case that the overweight people were simply eating/drinking things with higher BPA content (which means they may be eating the same caloric intake, but the food is just highly processed), or that, being fat, their bodies just store BPA longer than someone not overweight.

Re:Correllation? Causation? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394131)

Drinking soda would only boost BPA if it's from the can. The far more common plastic soda bottles have no BPA.

Blame the can! (2)

Sooner Boomer (96864) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393345)

And the fork/spoon! They're what made me fat!

Let's find an easy scapegoat for obesity . . . (2, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393373)

. . . it's not overeating and lack of exercise. Let's blame the soda can!

It's sure enough easier than convincing people to eat healthy and get more exercise . . .

"It's not my fault that I'm fat . . . I was given too much BPA as a child!"

Re:Let's find an easy scapegoat for obesity . . . (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393465)

Arguments like this are so ridiculous it's not even worth trying to point out the problems with them.

I'm a fat bastard.. (2)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393377)

and I know who to blame: myself. I just eat too much and don't get enough exercise.

I think this short 30 second youtube video is appropriate for the discussion, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ihOi56J17Hw [youtube.com]

Re:I'm a fat bastard.. (2)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393867)

and I know who to blame: myself. I just eat too much and don't get enough exercise.
   

It's never too late to fix that. I started biking to work 16 years ago. I've dropped from 250# to 160#, and now I even teach spin classes.

Re:I'm a fat bastard.. (5, Insightful)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394031)

It's probably time for me to change my habits. I'm 270 right now when my optimal genetic weight is probably about 195/200 (as my father and brothers are.) Frankly, sometimes the weight hurts my ankles... I spend way too much time in front of the computer editing video and drinking coffee. Its kind of pathetic.

Maybe I should take this moment to reflect and do something about it, I know I would be a lot happier if I did.

so I I'm fat because I stay hydrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393411)

By that logic.. You could drink four small bottles of water each day. Let's assume that the bottles contain BPA. Always adhere to doctor recommenced diet and exercise. And you still end up fat!

In reality, there's this evil thing is sodas called high fructose corn syrup. And it's not just sodas, take a look at the label sometime.

Obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393461)

It has been obvious for some time that obesity has a major environmental component. Mammals other than us are having an obesity epidemic.

Estrogen! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393535)

Finally I know why my penis is so small now... Never should have drank all that soda as a kid.

Betteridge's Law of Headlines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393541)

Is the Can Worse Than the Soda?

No.

Xenoestrogen (1)

areusche (1297613) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393543)

From what i've read in my adventures to bulk up and build muscles BPA is one of those really prevalent xenoestrogens. There are a ton of chemicals in our environment that mimic estrogen, and its effects have been crazy if you look at the effects on sperm counts and not to mention its emasculating effects of men. Soy is in the same class, so if you're a vegetarian watch out. I've also noticed a lot of testosterone creams hitting the market lately, probably to help those old men whose test counts are really low. Interesting times we live in these days....

Correlation w/o causation. (1)

ezakimak (160186) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393597)

People who chew gum are more likely to contract throat and lung cancer.
Correlated? Yes.
Cause: people who *smoke* are more likely to chew gum to freshen their breath afterwards.

BPA--in containers of crappy processed foods and beverages.
Grain-laced soda -> fat.

As "smart" as some of these researchers seem to be, they often come up with the *dumbest* conclusions.

Re:Correlation w/o causation. (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393815)

Yea... they didn't actually come to those conclusions.

They tested it by lacing mice food with bpa and observing their health in a controlled experiment.

As "smart" as some of these slashdot posters think they are, they often come up with the *dumbest* conclusions.

Re:Correlation w/o causation. (1)

ezakimak (160186) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394117)

From the post:

A study by researchers from New York University, published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, looked at a sample of nearly 3,000 children and teens across the country and found a 'significant' link between the amount of BPA in their urine and the prevalence of obesity.

Children and teens != mice.
The above statement sure sounds like a "conclusion" of sorts...

Re:Correlation w/o causation. (1)

coyote_oww (749758) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394119)

The articles cited state that researchers looked at BPA levels in people's urine, and found a correlation with obesity. No mice where harmed. You must be be thinking of a different study.

I don't get it (1)

Mask (87752) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393639)

Many, if not all canned drinks contain bisphenol-A.
Don't people who, instead of water, drink substantial amounts of canned and sweet beverages become obese?
Hence, if you get a lot of BPA in your system you are have good chances to be obese.

So what's the news?

(There is a small problem with this logic, which can easily be fixed ; I was lazy)

What of BEER? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393647)

OMFG!

What of canned beer?

strange end result (4, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393729)

World saved by Mexican Coke! (Coca-Cola, that is).

BPA also linked to increased breast cancer risk (2)

felixrising (1135205) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393809)

There was a recent confirmation of endocrine-disruptors such as BPA causing breast cancer in the female gene line which is passed on to not just the daughter, but the granddaughter and great grandaughter too... http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n9/full/ncomms2058.html [nature.com]

Fat kids eat more (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393941)

Ergo, they will have more BPA in their systems. Maybe fat stores BPA better too. Doesn't mean boa makes you fat (which is the angle tv news is taking).

Is the Can Worse Than the Soda? (1)

NoKaOi (1415755) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393997)

No.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?