12.15.2009

Puke Worthy Public Service Announcement

12/15/2009  T.  9 comments



Someone braver than I needs to tell Bigger Chris. I've already cautioned Perv to lay off the sugary beverages so maybe this will help. If you are unable to view video above try it here.

Posted in:

9 comments:

10 lbs / year that's ridiculous. It's Reefer Madness all over. Exaggerated public service scare tactics ruin the governments credibility.

Lets do the math.

4,000 surplus calories = 1lb of stored fat.

4,000 x 10 = 40,000 (equivalent of 10 lbs gained)

One sugary soda has approximately 150 calories (conservatively).

so 267 sodas per year would net you 10lbs stored fat, assuming all of the calories in the sodas were "surplus." Not a very big assumption if the alternative drink is water.

I know people who guzzle 2+ sodas per day, so 10 lbs a year sounds pretty conservative to me. I'd say 25 lbs a year is possible.

The PSA only states that it "can" make you gain 10 lbs in a year, obviously there are other factors involved. Drinking those additional calories certainly won't help anyone lose weight.

I don’t buy it, calorie consumed is not close to a stored equivalent. The body passes many calories undigested (some less than others, sorry T), theirs burn for digestion and additional calories are burned due to sugar and caffeine. I know lifetime soda drinkers in their 30’s and none of them weigh 400 lbs. The only way they can justify the stat is because, people that drink soda daily generally care less about their health.

Please provide some source for these "undigested calories" they do not exist and whoever is propagating that sort of bogus science needs a check.

I think what you are circling around is that people metabolize calories at different rates. There is no method to pass calories (a unit of energy) "unused" your body will store it as fat if it is not broken down and used for energy (as ATP).

Most people burn about 10% of their calories through metabolism (this includes digestion). This, as you pointed out, vary from person to person, but even in any single individual it can vary depending on their level of physical activity and total caloric intake. If you take in more calories, you generally burn more during metabolism, so your gross intake doesn't correlate calorie for calorie to your net intake.

For you to gain weight, whether it be from sodas, or chicken breast, you need to consume more than your baseline calorie requirements. Your baseline calorie requirement is unique to you. It will take into account your activity level (e.g. do you exercise) your base metabolism. Your height, your weight, and your age. What we've seen in recent years is that people consume more calories than needed, hence the problem with obesity, especially in children.

People have been looking to the cause of this, and one of the biggest sources of "junk" calories (calories consumed with no additional nutritional value). One of the biggest sources of junk calories are sugar sweetened beverages.

Lets put it in a way that might resonate a bit more with people.

If you are a regular soda drink (1 or more sugar sodas per day) and you stop drinking them, but keep everything else in your life the same (e.g. maintain current activity levels and don't eat any more food to make up for the lost calories in the soda) you will lose weight, probably more than 10lbs.

Flip that around and you can see exactly why drinking the sodas can cause the weight gain.

Shit has calories, one very successful way to lose a lot of weight is a gastric bypass. Gastric bypass works because your body absorbs less calories from the food you eat.


Hummm, maybe there was something to that Reefer Madness theory.

For healthy humans, the caloric content of feces and urine is minimal, diabetics have been known to pass some sugar in urine and fecal matter, is that the group you are referring to? If you find this significant, maybe start a movement to recycle the "movements" of diabetics in effort to thwart world hunger?

You are sort of right about gastric bypass. There is a less frequent proceude (distal) that removes part of the small intestine (as opposed to just the stomach) which reduces your ability to absorb nutrients and calories. Not only does this produce nutrient deficiency, the breakdown of starches and fats in the large intensine can cause extreme pain and gas. Because of this, it is not frequently used. As with diabetics, I don't see this infrequent example supporting your argument that increased sugar intake does not lead to fat storage.

With the more common, proximal gastric bypass, your body does absorb fewer calories after the surgery, but that is because your are taking in fewer calories. Your body doesn't absorb fewer of the calories ingested (unless you throw them up). Proximal gastric bypass works by reducing the amount of food you eat, and reducing the frequency and intensity of feelings of hunger due to the reduced stomach size.


I need to get ahold of whatever it is your smoking if it allows you to mix facts,fiction, and outlying data points together in whatever combination needed to prove a point.

I think there's a misunderstanding. I was merely arguing 1 extra calorie swallowed does not == 1 on your ass. Obviously the more you over eat the more will go on your ass.

On caloriesperhour.com a study talks about caloric content of the fecal at ranges around 20-60% of intake.

I think I'll take a dump now. -perv.

The 4,000 calories = 1lb obvious is a "one size fits all" calc that you'll need to modify based on individual metabolism, diabetes, and gastric bypass. Feel free to apply any offset/adjustment to that you find reasonable.

My original point is, its very easy to gain 10lbs in a year drinking sugar ladden sodas. In fact, when I talk to someone at work or at the gym looking to lose weight, the first thing I ask if if they drink soda and/or beer, both loaded with sugar based calories.

Conversely, when someone asks me how to gain weight, what do I suggest (no, not soda)? Drinking a calorie rich protein shake. Why? Because its very easy to ingest a large amount of calories when you are drinking them.

I couldn't find the study that talks about the calorie content of fecal matter on the site you linked to. Can you give me a link to a specific study? Did they say if these calories came from simple sugars? fats? starches?

No one, kids especially, should go around drinking hundreds of calories in simple sugars per day, it would be nice is they could excrete a significant portion of them, and if that was indeed the case, I'd say there is less cause for concern. The original video is trying to raise awareness that drinking sugary sodas is not benign, it can have very significant consequences. You compared it to refer madness type of paranoia and propagada. I believe these is a link between increased calorie consumption and weight gain, I don't think there is a link to marijuana use and insantity or deviant sex (a proposed by reefer madness).

Post a Comment