Mariyam Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 try limca icfers its strongest soft drink of india. try a Bacardi breezer SJ, its the softest strong drink of India
Sir john Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 try a Bacardi breezer SJ' date=' its the softest strong drink of India[/quote'] i dont spend more than 50 in a soft drink.
akshayxyz Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 try a Bacardi breezer SJ' date=' its the softest strong drink of India[/quote']
akshayxyz Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 And ladies and gentlemen, here is the lightest and healthiest drink.
anotherhawkeye Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 And ladies and gentlemen, here is the lightest and healthiest drink. :cantstop: Sent from my SGH-i937 using Board Express
beetle Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 try a Bacardi breezer SJ' date=' its the softest strong drink of India[/quote'] :two_thumbs_up:
Sir john Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 you forget to wear your spectacles while reading thi :hehe:
Brainfade Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 OP does not mention other components of the diet (I hope it is there in the research it is referring to). Sugary drinks can magnify the bad-effects of fatty foods - especially when taken together. But, I don't see how one cold drink worth of sugar per day can affect 20% by itself. Also, staying active (at least 30 mins x 4-5 times a week) helps a lot, and allows you more freedom with food/diets. The original study (with no media interpretation of it) is here: http://www.isdbweb.org/documents/file/4f6c7f66d0f3a.pdf Just found it and posted it for your reading pleasure :-). I haven't read it myself, so no comments yet.
akshayxyz Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 ^ Thanks. Btw what would be your first impression - (not on the research paper) - 30-40 gms of sugar/day can be that detrimental?
Brainfade Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 ^ Thanks. Btw what would be your first impression - (not on the research paper) - 30-40 gms of sugar/day can be that detrimental? Honestly, my first impression was "I need to find the paper" so I can figure out how they controlled all the variables that you mentioned. To answer your question, the rule of thumb is that, on a 2000 kcal diet, carb RDA = 100 - 130g. No more than 20% of that should come from simple sugars, allowing 20 - 26 g of simple sugars. So, the 40g or so from one can of soda is pretty high, especially since it all goes down in one shot. Considering that most soda is sucrose (50% glucose + 50%fructose), or HFCS (45/55), that's a pretty high glycemic load. Can't be good. But, 20% increase in CVD risk? I need to read the paper to see how they calculated that. And how they isolated the other variables. Added in edit: I happen to think that a 2000 kcal itself is high for an average individual. 1700 or whereabouts should be adequate.
akshayxyz Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Honestly, my first impression was "I need to find the paper" so I can figure out how they controlled all the variables that you mentioned. To answer your question, the rule of thumb is that, on a 2000 kcal diet, carb RDA = 100 - 130g. No more than 20% of that should come from simple sugars, allowing 20 - 26 g of simple sugars. So, the 40g or so from one can of soda is pretty high, especially since it all goes down in one shot. Considering that most soda is sucrose (50% glucose + 50%fructose), or HFCS (45/55), that's a pretty high glycemic load. Can't be good. But, 20% increase in CVD risk? I need to read the paper to see how they calculated that. And how they isolated the other variables. Added in edit: I happen to think that a 2000 kcal itself is high for an average individual. 1700 or whereabouts should be adequate. That is almost my line of thought was (except I did not try to search for the paper) and I was calculating 35-40 gm of additional sugar as % of overall diet (about 2000). As per my understanding of metabolism of simple sugars and associated high GI...it is not always bad and sometimes ( when taken with fatty food), the bad effects are compounded much more than if it were taken by itself. Besides - what raised my eyebrows - 20% is quite high a number, or perhaps it is not. Just read the abstract of the paper - as expected, they have adjusted for quite a few parameters - age, smoking, physical activity, alcohol, multivitamins, family history, diet quality, energy intake, BMI, pre-enrollment weight change and dieting. Just didn't yet notice the 'combination/timing thing' - whether the beverages were being taken in isolation - significantly away from meals on either side...(when blood/muscle/liver glycogen levels are low)...(may be it falls under adjustment for diet-quality). Edit. Also, since the additional risk is reported due to the "sugar" in the beverage, they should make it more clear that any type of source of sugar ( be it from sweets) - will be equally bad. Imagine someone, motivated by this article, switching to the diet cokes, but continue having regular good servings of pastries/cakes/sweets.
Sir john Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Drink Diet Soda if you want to :aha: is it available in india?
Desi Cartman Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 is it available in india? abey tere India mein diet coke na milti ... dimaag ka dahi banata rehta hai ... :whack:
ganeshran Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Diet coke/pepsi isnt healthy either, though it is low in calories
akshayxyz Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Diet coke/pepsi isnt healthy either' date=' though it is low in calories[/quote'] arey yaar, is tarah se kuchh bhi safe nahi hai. In case, you are referring to artificial sweeteners, then some are safer than others. as per recent studies new-gen sugar-alcohol (not sugar+alcohol) based, and sucralose etc.. artificial sweeteners are safer than the previous bunch found to be unsafe (e.g. saccharine) Besides, these are new chemicals in human diet, it will take some time (decades at least) to fully understand their long term effects. Also, the OP study is about effects of sugar based vs sugar free beverages on CVD risk...and not in general.
akshayxyz Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 Just read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Warning_label_added_and_removed Warning label added and removed In 1958, the United States Congress amended the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 with the Delaney clause to mandate that the Food and Drug Administration not approve substances that "induce cancer in man, or, after tests, [are] found to induce cancer in animals." Studies in laboratory rats during the early 1970s linked saccharin with the development of bladder cancer in rodents. As a consequence, all food containing saccharin was labeled with a warning.[23] However, in 2000, the warning labels were removed because scientists learned that rodents, unlike humans, have a unique combination of high pH, high calcium phosphate, and high protein levels in their urine.[24][25] One or more of the proteins that are more prevalent in male rats combine with calcium phosphate and saccharin to produce microcrystals that damage the lining of the bladder. Over time, the rat's bladder responds to this damage by over-producing cells to repair the damage, which leads to tumor formation. As this does not occur in humans, there is no elevated bladder cancer risk. The delisting of saccharin led to legislation, which was signed into law on December 21, 2000, repealing the warning label requirement for products containing saccharin. In 2001, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the state of California reversed their positions on saccharin, declaring it safe for consumption.[26] The FDA’s decision followed a 2000 determination by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program to remove saccharin from its list of carcinogens. The EPA has officially removed saccharin and its salts from their list of hazardous constituents and commercial chemical products. In a December 14, 2010 release, the EPA stated that saccharin is no longer considered a potential hazard to human health.[27] So, now even saccharine is safe!! (until new studies prove otherwise :))
Recommended Posts