Too many fizzy drinks found to be bad for the penis

Fizzy drinks have perhaps rightfully received plenty of bad press in recent years on a regular basis. After all, the high sugary drinks have been closely linked to tooth decay, weight gain, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and can even quicken up the aging process.

Now there could be another reason to leave the fizzy drinks well alone, with scientists reporting there is a link between soda consumption and problems ‘down there’ for men – more specifically fertility and erectile dysfunction.

Scientists based at Copenhagen University Hospital made the findings after looking at consumption of Coca-Cola. For the study they looked at 2,554 men who drank large amounts of coke and found that drinking 1 litre of the fizzy drink on a daily basis could cut a man’s sperm count by a staggering 30% and also cause impotence problems.

Those addicted to fizzy drinks were found to have an average sperm count of 35 million per millilitre, compared to 56 million per millilitre in those who consumed less coke. Despite 35million per millilitre falling within the normal range, it will place men more at risk of eventually becoming infertile.

Even though many would probably assume caffeine to be the culprit for the men’s health risks, researchers in the study discovered there does not seem to be any direct correlation between the caffeine consumed in other drinks such as coffee and tea, meaning there is something else within fizzy drinks that is the root of the problems.

The scientists did note that while getting an erection also depended on both physical and psychological factors, they believe that there is a sweetener used in the drink which could cause damage to arteries in the penis, hindering the blood flow through it.

The failure of being able to achieve and sustain an erection may in fact be a result of large amounts of fructose corn syrup, a sweetener added to many fizzy drinks. In addition, visceral fat deposition, caused by unhealthy diet habits such as drinking fizzy drinks, is also a factor in erectile dysfunction.
In conclusion, the scientists report that drinking the odd can of coke or other fizzy drink should be OK and not lead to any catastrophic side effects, but those guzzling more than a litre per day should try and cut down.

Could diet soft drinks cause heart attacks and strokes?

The diet sugar-free soft drink…often seen as a beneficial tool in the quest for weight loss and a staple in the diet of many people trying to lose weight that may have a sweet tooth. With almost zero calories and apparently none of the spoonfuls of sugar that has been lumped into their full-sugared counterparts, diet drinks are almost too good to be true.

However, this too good to be true mantra, may actually be fitting after the alarming findings of a new study into artificially sweetened fizzy drinks and the impact they can have on our body.

Worryingly, those people who are drinking two or more diet soft drinks each day may be a staggering 50% more likely to die because heart disease. This conclusion was arrived at after health experts looked at the diet drink consumption of nearly 60,000 people taking part in the women’s health initiative, a long-term US study into the cardiovascular health of post-menopausal women.

The average age of the women was calculated at 62.8 and all women must have had no prior history of cardiovascular problems to be involved in the study.

Through a questionnaire, women were asked to document how many diet drinks they drank over a duration of three months, with a drink being taken as a 12oz (355ml) sized beverage including diet soft and fruit drinks.

The researchers tracked the women for an average follow-up time of about 9 years, variety of negative outcomes occurred in 8.5% of those who drank at least two diet drinks each day. These negative outcomes included: coronary heart disease, congestive heart failure, heart attack, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease and cardiovascular death.

In contrast, negative outcomes occurred in 6.9% of the women who drank between five and seven drinks each week, within 6.8% that had drank one to four drinks per week, and 7.2% drinking between zero and three diet drinks each month.

“Our findings are in line with and extend data from previous studies showing an association between diet drinks and metabolic syndrome,” commented Dr Ankur Vyas, of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, lead investigator of the study. The syndrome has been linked to a number of risk factors for heart disease, such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and obesity.

“We only found an association, so we can’t say that diet drinks cause these problems,” Dr Vyas added, highlighting there may be other reasons for the link between diet drinks and a risk of heart attack and stroke.

Dr Vyas stressed that the women who had drink two or more diet drinks each day were typically younger in age, more likely to smoke, with a higher prevalence of diabetes, high blood pressure and of being overweight, adding that further research should be conducted to see if there is an actual definite link between diet drinks and cardiovascular risk.

20% tax on sugary drinks could ease Britain’s obesity crisis

Researchers say that if a 20% tax was slapped onto all sugary drinks then this would help to bring down the total number of obese adults in the UK by an estimated 180,000.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, the researchers from Oxford and Reading argue that the 20% tax on Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Fanta and other sugar-sweetened drinks, would help to curb the worrying rise in sales of such drinks which they say is merely adding fuel to the fire of the nation’s obesity crisis.

The authors of the paper have spent time to calculate both the financial impact of introducing a 20% tax, and how much effect it could have in regards to trying to curtail the problem of obesity.

Dr Adam Briggs, lead study author from the Nuffield Department of Population Health at Oxford University, said their research has shown that taxing sugar-sweetened drinks “is a promising population measure”.

He commented: “Sugar-sweetened drinks are known to be bad for health and our research indicates that a 20% tax could result in a meaningful reduction in the number of obese adults in the UK. Such a tax is not going to solve obesity by itself, but we have shown it could be an effective public health measure and should be considered alongside other measures to tackle obesity in the UK.”

Dr Briggs and colleagues modelled the health effects of a 20% by using the information extracted from several separate surveys. These surveys had provided data on the trends of drink purchases, drinks consumption, and the prevalence of obesity throughout the UK.

They calculated that a 20% tax would equate to a 60p can of 330ml Coca-Cola now costing 72p, and help to cut the number of overweight adults in the UK by 0.9% (285,000 adults) and reduce the number of obese adults by 1.3% (180,000) adults. The tax would also result in roughly 40p being added to the cost of two-litre bottle.

The age group most effected would likely be those aged 16 to 29 the researchers say, as these typically consume a lot more sugary drinks in comparison to other age groups.

Because it is merely the over 30s who would be impacted by the introduction of the tax, this has led to some groups arguing that the tax would be misguided and simplistic, not having much of an impact on older people who could actually benefit most from losing weight.

Gavin Partington, director general of the British Soft Drinks Association, argued that soft drinks should not be blamed for Britain’s obesity problems.

He said: “There’s ample evidence to suggest that taxing soft drinks won’t curb obesity, not least because its causes are far more complex than this simplistic approach implies. Indeed, the latest official guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence points to the need to look at overall diet and lifestyle. Trying to blame one set of products is misguided, particularly when they comprise a mere 2% of calories in the average diet.”

In addition, Tom Sanders, professor of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London, argued that the findings of the study were somewhat “naive”.

He said: “Most nutritionists agree it would be better to drink water than sugar-sweetened beverages. However, many consumers like sweet drinks and if they could not afford to buy sugary fizzy drinks they can always revert to drinking tea with added sugar as in the past. The cost of sugar-sweetened beverages is currently so low that any price increase would be so marginal that it would be unlikely to affect intake.”

However, the facts do not lie when it comes to fizzy drinks and the fact remains that a typical sugary drink still contains a shocking six to 15 teaspoons of sugary. Just one teaspoon of sugary works out at around 16 calories and 4g of sugar. On top of this, a regular consumption of the drinks has been linked to an increase in the risk of tooth decay and diabetes as well as obesity.

In fact, earlier this year doctors led calls for a tax on sugary drinks, in addition to other recommendations such as the number of fast food outlets close by to schools and colleges to be severely limited and a ban on junk food advertising before the watershed.

Sugar content and calories in soft drinks to be downsized

In the beginning months of 2012, the government created a new ‘Public Health Responsibility Deal’ pledge, aiming to reduce 5 billion calories from the nation’s daily diet. The primary reason for this is due to the fact that England’s obesity rates are amongst the worst across Europe and in the developed world. It is believed that over 60% of adults and a third of 10 and 11 year olds are overweight or obese, and clearly things need to change.

Therefore, working together with some of the country’s biggest supermarkets, food manufacturers, caterers and food outlets, The Department of Health has decided to target alcohol, food, health at work and physical activity.

This brings us to the news emerging this week that leading drinks manufacturers are starting to acknowledge the fact that high sugar content in their drinks is having a negative impact on obesity levels and that action is also needed to try and protect teeth from a premature decay.

Soft drinks such as Lucozade, Ribena and Irn-Bru are now set to see their sugar content reduced by up to 10% – actions that maybe should have been considered long before now.

Presently, a can of Irn-Bru contains about 6 teaspoons of sugar and if this is not horrifying enough, a 500ml bottle of Ribena contains about a staggering 52.6g of sugar (13 teaspoons) and 216 calories.
Both drinks are produced by pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline who released a statement via a spokeswoman, saying: “We have a responsibility to help people make healthier choices. We are saying this is a first step. It is the start of a journey.”

The manufacturers of Irn-Bru, AG Barr, have also relented from government pressure and will cut the calorie content in their range of drinks by 5%. In addition, the Ribena ready-to-drink and Lucozade Energy drinks will see a drop  of sugar and calorie content by up to 10%, and J2O will launch two flavours in a new slim line can that contain 10% less calories than the regular 275ml bottle.
Public Health Minister Anna Soubry was delighted with the news that the drinks giants had gotten on-board with the Responsibility Deal, seeing it as a step in the right direction for the long-term plan to tackle obesity.

She said: “Being overweight and not eating well is bad for our health. To reverse the rising tide of obesity we have challenged the nation to reduce our calorie intake by 5 billion calories a day. On average that’s just 100 calories less a day per person. Today’s announcement will cut the calories and sugar by up to 10% in leading brands like Lucozade and Ribena. Through the Responsibility Deal we are already achieving real progress in helping people reduce the calories and salt in their diet. Overall, more than 480 companies including many leading high street brands have signed up to the Responsibility Deal. We are encouraged by the extra businesses which have signed up today but I want to see even more progress.  All in the food industry have a part to play and I now expect companies which are not yet taking action to come forward and make pledges.”

There are now 31 companies that have joined the governmental scheme including Coca-Cola GB, PepsiCo, Britvic, Asda, Tesco, Co-Operative Food and Burton’s Biscuits.

Unfortunately, not everybody welcomed the latest developments with a positive attitude. Charlie Powell of the Children’s Food Campaign said that the newer version of the popular drinks would still merit a red traffic light according to Food Standards Agency guidelines. He said: “So they are swapping one red light for another, not exactly impressive. Lots of companies making tokenistic commitments does not constitute effective action to tackle obesity – it is regrettable that the Department of Health is pushing a smoke-and-mirrors strategy which puts public health behind commercial interests.”

Coca-Cola tries to dispel obesity concerns with TV ads

Global Soft drinks giant Coca-Cola have gone to drastic measures to defend themselves against increasing concerns regarding the negative impact that fizzy drinks are having to our health. There is a staggeringly high sugar content in many drinks such as regular Coke, Pepsi, etc., and this is contributing towards tooth decay and the spiralling obesity epidemic occurring both in Britain and also in the U.S.

Interestingly, sales growth within North America over the last 15 years for Coca-Cola has directly emanated from millions of people deciding to go with the no-sugar and no-calorie options such as Coke Zero, clearly showing a huge public worry about the fuller-sugared versions. These diet versions of their soda drinks now comprise of roughly a third of its sales in the U.S. and Canada.

Therefore, to perhaps address the issue of obesity and attempt to alleviate the mounting pressure on the soft drinks industry, Coca-Cola have launched a new advertising campaign on cable television in the U.S. The two minute-long commercials were given their first airing during last night’s ‘The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer’ on CNN, FOX News’ ‘The O’Reilly Factor’, and MSNBC’s ‘The Rachel Maddow Show’.

A spokeswoman for Coca-Cola, Diana Garza, said: “The audience for this new ad is knowledgeable about the problem but doesn’t necessarily know about what the Coca-Cola Co is doing to address it. We are telling them our story.” She also acknowledged that the company had to try and remain consistent with its brand voice and avoid sounding ‘preachy’.

In the advert shown on Monday night, a female voice was heard stating that Coca-Cola drinks actually have reduced portion sizes in the form of smaller cans, the company are putting their efforts into creating better-tasting, low-calorie sweeteners and has voluntarily made lower-calorie drinks available at schools. Viewers are also provided with a reminder that ‘all calories count no matter where they come from’ and ‘if you eat and drink more calories than you burn off, you’ll gain weight’.

The advertisements are also expected during many other shows tonight too and a separate commercial, explaining about Coke’s front-of-package calorie labels, will be screened for the first time Wednesday during ‘American Idol’ on Fox – who have partnered with Coke for several years.

The second ad is a stark contrast to the first, and could be seen as more traditionally ‘upbeat’ as people would expect from company known for their series of happy Christmas television adverts. It will feature a montage of fun activities that will equate to burning off the ‘140 happy calories’ contained in a can of Coke: dancing, laughing with friends, walking a dog and doing a victory dance after getting a strike during a game of bowling.

However, Coca-Cola claims that their new series of videos have not been created due to mainstream bashing of the soft drink industry, but as a way to ‘raise awareness’.

The campaign follows tough action by news that US government officials are specifically concentrating on high-calorie soft drinks for stricter regulations. In New York, a city where shockingly 58% of people are classed as either overweight or obese, a new law will come into effect from March barring the sale of soft drinks larger than a pint in any cinema, restaurant and stadia.

Unfortunately it seems that not everybody agrees with the real intentions of Coca-Cola’s television campaign. Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, has long been critical of the soft drinks industry, and he said that the move “looks like a page out of Damage Control 101. They’re trying to disarm the public.” However, Mr Jacobson did not stop there in his scathing assessment and added: “They’re trying to pretend they’re part of the solution instead of part of the problem. If Coke was serious about wanting to be part of the solution, it could stop advertising full-calorie drinks altogether, set up a pricing scheme where full-calorie drinks were more expensive, or stop opposing proposed soda taxes.”

Soft drinks branded ‘evil’ in new study

We are all drinking far more soft drinks than we used to, according to a new study undertaken by Bangor University. Many of us are now having one to two cans a day and as reported in last weeks article on Medical Specialists News; we are increasingly using sports drinks such as Lucozade whilst engaging in sports activities or visiting the gym. In fact, it is no surprise to learn that our consumption of soft drinks has more than doubled since 1985 from 10 gallons per person a year to more than 25 gallons.

Now we all know that soft drinks aren’t necessarily good for you but could they be more dangerous than we thought and in many more ways than we thought. In fact, are they that dangerous that they should carry a health warning?

That may sound a little alarming but not to Dr Hans-Peter Kubis, the man behind the Bangor University study. Dr Kubis stated, “Having seen all the medical evidence, I don’t touch soft drinks now; I think drinks with added sugar are frankly evil.”

Even moderate consumption of one can a day or just two a week may alter our metabolism so that we pile on weight. The research at Bangor University and also published in the European Journal of nutrition reported that soft drinks actually alter our metabolism so that our muscles use sugar for energy instead of burning fat. It seems that exposure to liquid sugar not only results in weight gain but that it also changes our metabolism and genes within our muscles perhaps permanently, leaving us less able to cope with rises in blood sugar. This in turn increases the risk of type 2 diabetes.

This research into soft drinks carried out at Bangor University is nothing new; in fact it is one in a long line of studies that have looked into the dangers of soft drinks. A study in March published in the American Heart Association’s journal, warned that men who drank one standard 12 oz can of sweetened beverage a day have a 20% higher risk of heart disease.

Perhaps most disturbing is the effect these sugary drinks are having on children. Four years ago, researchers at University College London’s Health Behaviour Research Centre, discovered a powerful and lucrative effect that sugary soft drinks have on youngsters. The study of 346 children aged around 11, found drinking soft drinks makes them want to drink more often even when they’re not actually thirsty and that their preference is for more sugary drinks.

Perhaps Dr Kubis highlighted the extent of the problem when acknowledging that he needed to do a much larger trial. His main problem was that he had difficulty in finding young people who had not previously been exposed to a lot of soft drinks.