You Want a Coke With That?


It seems like there really is no "good" way to live. They used to say that drinking tomato juice (and/or products) reduced your risks of getting prostate cancer later on in life. Years later, they say that it actually increases your risk.

They said that masturbating regularly reduced your risk of (whether it was testicular or prostate, I do not recall) cancer. Now they say that if you masturbate frequently, you increase your risk.

I think I've come to just accept the fact that I'm going to die at some point. Can I do things to make myself feel better now? Yes. Am I doing that? More or less. Am I going to immediately stop doing something every time a new study or finding is released? No.

We ALL die. Be content.

Wait, what point what I trying to make? Oh, fuck it. I'm going to go pound back a tomato juice, smoke some weed, and rub one off.
Wow, I did not click on the comments link expecting someone to have already basically made my comment (which is below) for me:

Aww, man. Everything I ingest regularly is going to kill me. I'm not long for this Earth.
@2 - To be fair, growing up my mom would buy us copious amounts of pop--not soda--and we would ingest them without hesitancy. After hating myself for being so fat and lazy after so many years, I finally just got sick of it all, and stopped drinking pop and started working out, etc.

I guess I trained my body to hate certain foods and beverages. I can stomach diet pop once in a while, but then I regret it.
calling bullshit on this. for starters,
2+ sodas per week is not very much soda at all, and an 87% increased risk is HUGE. at worst they contain HFCS, which is found in nearly everything we consume these days. if these results were true we would all be dying of pancreatic cancer.

props to WebMD for at least putting a question mark at the end of the headline. no doubt everyone else will be reporting this as though it's documented fact.
@1 and 2

Actually, it's pretty damn easy. Don't eat processed crap and don't pay any attention to studies that have anything to do with real food. If humans have been eating it for thousands of years, it's good for you. Whether it's good for you in the quantities modern life allows us to have is determined by how energy rich the particular food item is, your metabolism and how much exercise you get.

It's not about living forever, it's just about staying away from the obvious bad stuff (processed sugar water, say).

@1: Your tomato juice, weed and rubbing plan sounds excellent, and very healthy.
Stick to real Coke, made with Cane Sugar, like you get in Mexico.
I just drink diet soda. Same thing as water, but with fizz and flavor added and still no calories. Problem solved.
Wait, did I read this article all wrong?

The researchers say:
60,524 folks studied for 14 years
140 developed pancreatic cancer
Folks who drink soda have twice the risk of pancreatic cancer

The Industry Shill says:
110 developed pancreatic cancer AND drank no sodas (this doesn't sound right)
12 developed pancreatic cancer AND drank 0<n<2 sodas a week
18 developed pancreatic cancer AND drank 2<=n sodas a week

I'm inclined at this point to agree with the shill - this sample size is bullshit.

The researchers "didn't ask specifically about diet soda consumption." That seems like a pretty big "duh" question to ask.
@8 how many died from driving a Toyota?
Well, I'd say that there are "good" and "bad" ways to live, relative to each other. If you don't mind dealing with the potential health issues that a life of eating processed crap will give you, then go ahead and do it. If you can't bear to eat anything other than an organic vegan diet, then go ahead and do that. And if you're somewhere in between, like the vast majority of us are, and are in a state of being that is acceptable to you, then great. We'll all be dead in the end!
Moderation - that's the way to do it.
@6 pretty sure they use cane sugar for coke everywhere but in the US which is crap but there you have it. We use that funky high fructose corn syrup.
Cane sugar is 50/50 fructose/glucose. HFCS is 55/45. Added fructose is a problem, but you're fooling yourself if you think avoiding HFCS but still eating lots of plain old sugar is going to improve your health much. That 50% is still plenty. Incidentally, honey is also 55/45.
@4, you say that since the cause is small and the effect is huge, it can't be true. An 87% percent increase in occurances over the control group does not equal 100% of the population. Start here:
at-fifteen: wtf does this have to do with carl sagan? was he an epidemiologist?

the results do not make sense. i suspect the authors are tweaking their data to make for a splashy result.

depending on how you group continuous variables into discreet categories – in this case, grouping the number of sodas/wk into 0, 1-2, and 2+ -- you can force statistically significant associations that are purely an artifact of how you do the analysis. considering this data, a study sample size of over 60K, these are pretty weak groupings. Why stop at 2+? Why not, 0, 0-2, 2-4, 4-6, 7+, etc. if there truly is a relationship between soda consumption and pancreatic cancer, you would expect to see some semblance of a dose-response here, particularly for a study this large.

just think about it for a second: the difference between 0 and 2 sodas per week is nominal when you consider the total amount of food people eat in a given week. yet the authors want us to believe that 2 sodas per week nearly doubles your risk of pancreatic cancer compared to those who drink no soda at all, but the cancer-risk for someone who drinks 2 sodas is indistinguishable from someone who consumes 5 or 10 or 50 sodas/wk. according to this article, the average number of sodas/wk consumed by the uppermost (2+) group is 5, so clearly they have more specific data on soda consumption from the study subjects, so why are they using such ham-fisted categories? because it’s bullshit. that’s why.