Sing Along With Sugar

I’ve been writing about sugar and all its variations for the last few weeks now, and today is the last of the series on it.

To close out, I leave you with a video I made set to some bubblegum music – how pertinent to sugar, eh?

So get ready to sing and clap your hands, all in honor of sugar.

Do you love sugar? I hate to break the bad news to you, but sugar doesn’t love you back, no matter what the song may tell you.

Let others know about this article by posting it on Twitter! It’s easy – just click on the “tweet it” button below.

Should Soft Drinks Be Taxed to Help Pay for Health Care Reform?

Over the last two days I’ve written articles about how bad for your health soda and Red Bull, the world’s top-selling “energy drink,” are.

Most public health advocates are in agreement on this. And some are now calling for creating a separate tax on soft drinks in order to help pay for health care reform and as a way to help promote preventative health measures.

Soft drinks are the only beverage or food that has been shown to increase the risk of obesity. And obesity, in turn, promotes heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and other expensive-to-treat diseases. All told, Americans spend about $90 billion a year in direct medical costs related to obesity, of which half is paid with Medicare and Medicaid taxpayer dollars.

Studies of soda consumption have shown that teenage boys who drink soft drinks consume an average of three 12-ounce cans and girls an average of two 12-ounce cans per day.

Studies also show that one in 10 boys who drinks soft drinks consumes five-and-a-half 12-ounce cans a day, or about 800 calories worth. It’s not the only reason, but the increase in soda consumption since the 1970s certainly helps explain why obesity rates have tripled in teens.

Advocates have called for a federal excise tax on soft drinks of anywhere from one cent per 12-ounce can to one cent per ounce of soft drink.

The higher the tax, the advocates state, the more money it would raise and the greater incentive would there be for reduced consumption, which would in turn help to reverse the obesity problem and improve overall health, thus cutting health care costs.

It has been estimated that a tax of one cent per 12-ounce can would raise $1.5 billion per year, and reduce consumption by 1 percent. And a tax of one cent per ounce would raise about $16 billion a year and reduce consumption by more than 10 percent.

One article that appeared recently in the New England Journal of Medicine, written by the New York City Health Commissioner, Dr. Thomas Frieden, advocated for the one cent per ounce excise tax, and said that based on experience with tobacco taxes, a soda tax would be “highly effective” in reducing the $79 billion in annual health care costs associated with obesity and overweight across the country.

Dr. Frieden argued that an excise tax would be more effective than a traditional sales tax and provide an incentive to buy less soda. The article says that since the mid-1990s, children have been drinking more beverages containing sugar than they do milk.

“Diet-related diseases also cost society in terms of decreased work productivity, increased absenteeism, poorer school performance and reduced fitness on the part of military recruits,” he wrote.

In a recent interview in support of his article, Dr. Frieden said that the Bloomberg administration in New York City had tried to combat obesity through calorie labeling, banning trans fats and serving one percent milk in school cafeterias.

But, he said, “Soda is the big one.”

Predictably, the soda industry shot back with a defense of their products. Susan Neely, president of the American Beverage Association, issued a statement in response to the article:

“We agree that obesity is a serious and complex problem. It defies both science and common sense, however, to think singling out one product as a unique contributor to obesity will make a dent in the problem.”

Gee, what a surprise her statement is.

Other critics argue that a soda tax is regressive, because it will disproportionally hurt lower income people more than higher income folks.

That’s true as far it goes, but if soda tax revenues are used to help pay for expanded health care coverage and for prevention, lower-income Americans will enjoy the biggest share of the benefit.

So what do you think about taxing soft drinks? Feel free to leave a comment below.

Let others know about this article by posting it on Twitter! It’s easy – just click on the “tweet it” button below.

Too Much Soda Drinking Can Damage Your Muscles

For the last two weeks I’ve written articles telling you about the downside of sugar in all its variations – sugar, high fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners.

I even told you of the controversy surrounding the natural sweetener stevia.

All of these sweeteners are harmful to your health, and will hinder you in your attempt to experience healthy living and health and wellness.

And as a result, they will also deter your ability to live a Low Density Lifestyle.

I thought I would move on from talking about sugar, but because sugar is consumed in such high quantities – in the U.S. per capita sugar intake is around 175 pounds a year – I’ve decided to spend this week continuing to talk about sugar.

For the next few days, I want to talk about sugary soft drinks. After all, we are inundated with advertising telling us how great our lives can be the more we consume the sugary drinks.

I figured since I don’t have the advertising budget of the soft drink companies that would allow me to run endless ads promoting my point of view, I would just have to tell you some negatives about soft drinks.

For instance, did you know drinking soda can screw up your muscles, leading to anything from mild muscle weakness to severe muscle paralysis?

This was the findings of doctors writing in a medical journal. They said soda does this because it causes blood potassium levels to drop dangerously low.

The author of the research paper said it appeared that hypokalaemia (low blood potassium) can be caused by excessive consumption of three of the most common ingredients in cola drinks – glucose, fructose and caffeine.

The author, Dr Moses Elisaf from the University of Ioannina in Greece wrote, “The individual role of each of these ingredients in the pathophysiology of cola-induced hypokalaemia has not been determined and may vary in different patients.

“However in most of the cases we looked at for our review, caffeine intoxication was thought to play the most important role.

“This has been borne out by case studies that focus on other products that contain high levels of caffeine but no glucose or fructose.”

Despite this, he warned that caffeine free cola products could also cause hypokalaemia because the fructose they contain can cause diarrhea.

“We believe that further studies are needed to establish how much is too much when it comes to the daily consumption of cola drinks.”

Excessive consumption of soda has already been linked with obesity, diabetes and tooth and bone problems.

A spokeswoman from the British Soft Drinks Association said in response to the journal article: “The soft drinks industry is committed to encouraging responsible consumption of all its products. Nutrition labeling is included on the pack so people can make an informed choice about the products they are drinking.”

What? Did you expect them to say something different?

Like, that drinking soft drinks can cause your health to suffer and take you off the path of health and wellness?

Fat chance.

Let others know about this article by posting it on Twitter! It’s easy – just click on the “tweet it” button below.