Drink Coca Cola Like Grandpa

So Coca Cola has yet another ad out in their ludicrous anti-obesity campaign that offends anyone with a brain (apparently not a concern for their marketing department).

This time they are actually RIGHT! See the video answer by the always great dr Yoni Freedhoff. He points out that drinking Coke like your grandfather means you’ll drink it from truly tiny bottles. I think you’d be even wiser to drink Coke like your great-grandpa instead: not at all.

Furthermore, here’s the highest-ranked comment on YouTube:

It seems a lot of people aren’t fooled.

More about the free updates that people get.

More

left
The Real Association Between Butter and Heart Disease in Sweden 24
Is Overeating Carbs Worse Than Overeating on an LCHF Diet? 102
Number of Weight-Loss Surgeries Continues to Decline in Sweden! 28
Did Pfizer Conceal That Statins Can Cause Diabetes? 21
What Happens if You Eat 5,800 Calories of Carbohydrate-Rich Junk Food Daily? 58
Is Skipping Breakfast Deadly? 21
Your iPhone Gives You Cancer – But Protects You From Malaria! 8
The Movie the Junk Food Industry Fears 26
Is It Dangerous to Eat Meat Before Age 65? 48
More Interviews Coming Up 19
Low-Carb Diet in a Pill – A Good Idea? 25
Gallstones and Low Carb 134
right

40 Comments

Top Comments

  1. Scott UK
    Aren't "our Grandpas" the ones currently dying a slow death from diabetes, high blood pressure and dementia?
    Read more →
  2. ItsTheWooo
    ...and then grandpa, smiling ear to ear, as giddy as a new baby, turns to his grandson and says "who are you?"

    Turns out coca cola fueled grandpa is suffering from a severe mitochondrial disorder / insufficiency after a lifetime of coke addiction, and now has type II diabetes and moderate vascular dementia.

    Poor american 80 year old grandpa :(

    Read more →

All Comments

  1. Mike Graf
    They left out the fact that a serving of Cola was once really small. Not 32 oz or w/e . If every coke consumer switched to have only 1x 100 calorie serving per day, the Coke company would be in big trouble (with warren buffet who wants the profits).
    Reply: #2
  2. FrankG
    That was one of the main points in Dr Freedhoff's response that Dr Andreas linked above... here is a more direct link to the video portion of that response...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH61BlV2EoM

    The eye-opening thing for me is when he pours the contents of the traditional 6oz glass bottle into a large glass jar and then pours the contents of the more current and ubiquitous 20z plastic bottle into another glass jar (same size as the first). It is like an optical illusion; how small the 20z bottle looks when you see just how much coke comes out of it!

  3. Daniel
    Pure stupidity... :/ I don't even feel the need to going into more detail.
  4. Ash Simmonds
  5. Scott UK
    Aren't "our Grandpas" the ones currently dying a slow death from diabetes, high blood pressure and dementia?
  6. Low-fat Richard
    Cultures/countries such as Cuba, Columbia, Costa-Rica have traditionally showed very high table sugar intake, yet obesity, diabetes and CHD have been rare in these populations.

    See Ancel Keys classic paper:

    Sucrose in the diet and coronary heart disease.
    http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pdg66b00/pdf

    Kempner’s rice-fruit diet which was based on white-rice, fruit, fruit juice and sugar resulted in weight loss in his patients.

    1) DIETARY TREATMENT OF HYPERTENSION. CLINICAL AND METABOLIC STUDIES OF PATIENTS ON THE RICE-FRUIT DIET
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC436162/

    2) Treatment of massive obesity with rice/reduction diet program. An analysis of 106 patients with at least a 45-kg weight loss.
    Kempner W, Newborg BC, Peschel RL, Skyler JS. Arch Intern Med. 1975 Dec;135(12):1575-84.
    PMID: 1200726

    In fact, Kempner’s renown rice program is still going strong.
    http://www.ricediet.com

    In the Women’s Health Initiative the control group who were advised to lower fat intake significantly increased the intake of sugar and showed trends towards lower body weight and waist circumference. If anything there was a slight trend towards a lower risk of diabetes in the control group.

    Low-fat dietary pattern and lipoprotein risk factors: the Women’s Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/4/860.full

    Of course this is not to suggest that sugar is a health food, but does cast doubt on the suggestion by the low-carbers that a sugar is the primary driver of metabolic syndrome, caloric imbalance and saturated animal fats in particular seem to make better culprits.

    Saturated Fatty Acid-Mediated Inflammation and Insulin Resistance in Adipose Tissue: Mechanisms of Action and Implications1
    http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/1/1.full

    Fatty acid–induced NLRP3-ASC inflammasome activation interferes with insulin signaling
    http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v12/n5/full/ni.2022.html

    Reply: #16
  7. T-A
    I guess we have to eat the white super processed bread too..?
  8. ItsTheWooo
    ...and then grandpa, smiling ear to ear, as giddy as a new baby, turns to his grandson and says "who are you?"

    Turns out coca cola fueled grandpa is suffering from a severe mitochondrial disorder / insufficiency after a lifetime of coke addiction, and now has type II diabetes and moderate vascular dementia.

    Poor american 80 year old grandpa :(

  9. Z.M.
    Richard: "Saturated Fatty Acid-Mediated Inflammation and Insulin Resistance in Adipose Tissue: Mechanisms of Action and Implications1 http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/1/1.full"

    Great example of selective citation which includes mostly animal studies. The only relevant study cited in that is this one (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17367705) which found increases in IL-6 but no increases in E-selectin, sVCAM-1 or sICAM-1. Most saturated fat studies either find no increases in IL-6 or increases in IL-6 that are independent of meal type sometimes even increasing on a water test. Also these short term studies are confounded by differences in antioxidant content between the different fats.

  10. Low-fat Richard
    ZM,

    animal models are done in order to demonstrate cause & effect. We cannot conduct studies where participants are put on experimental diabetes by feeding them butter & cream. See also the paper on WHI. In studies on non-human primates sucrose diets (70% of sugar) have mediated reversal of coronary heart disease that was initially initiated by saturated fats and dietary cholesterol. You are not arguing that we should exempt human from the Darwinian foundation of our biomedical research paradigm, are you? You are not a creationist, I hope. You have to see through the lenses of preponderance of evidence. In epidemiological setting fat seems to be highly correlated with diabetes.

    "Dietary fat is the nutrient that is most closely associated in epidemiologic studies with the risk of developing T2DM. Although dietary fats clearly have an impact on total caloric intake (related to their calore density) and on circulating lipids, they have a minimal impact on glycemia acutely. Fat intake is a contributor to obesity and is the critical nutrient for cardiovascular risk management".

    --Williams textbook of endocrinology

    In healthy people sugar feeding improves insulin sensitivity. This is what happens when a sucrose diet is fed to healthy males (70% calories from sucrose).

    Effects of high glucose and high sucrose diets on glucose tolerance of normal men
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/26/6/600.full.pdf+html

    When low-carb, high fat diets are fed to lean, healthy men, a havoc is created to the sugar metabolism. This was recently demonstrated in a Japanese study.

    I am not promoting coca-cola or sugar, however I see people rather drinking their occasional cola than eating red meat, butter and cream.

    Reply: #11
  11. FrankG
    Why do you use a different alias/pseudonym for each blog post where you comment... sometimes even multiple aliases within a single set of comments?

    Surely you must realise what impact this has on your credibility... or lack thereof?

    Do you honestly think that your style of posting will be mistaken for anyone else? That perhaps you will be misconstrued as a reasonable person who is open to discussion, rather than a vegan ideologue and a lying hypocrite to boot?

    "Studies show that 70% of calories from sucrose is GOOD for you.. not that I am promoting coca-cola..." ROFL!!!

    Preponderance of evidence... really? Eat $h1t... 100,000,000 flies can't be wrong eh?!?

  12. Z.M.
    Richard: "animal models are done in order to demonstrate cause & effect."

    Animal models are done in order to demonstrate cause & effect in ANIMALS. When the human studies contradict the animal studies, being a human, I put far more weight to the human studies. You have it backwards.

    Richard: "You are not a creationist, I hope."

    No, but I'd rather be a creationist than a vegan because many creationists can be far more logical than vegans.

    Richard: "You have to see through the lenses of preponderance of evidence. In epidemiological setting fat seems to be highly correlated with diabetes."

    There is no preponderance of evidence. Rather, there is a preponderance of biased interpretations of the evidence.

  13. MikeW
    Dr. Freedhoff is right - portion size is the key point here, not what Grandpa ate back in the day.

    Although my 50-years-dead grandfather would recognize most of the food we eat today, he would be amazed at the dietary prominence of sugary stuff that was considered a rare treat or Sunday dessert in his time.

    Maybe even Robert ("fructose is poison") Lustig would agree. In one of his videos I recall him saying he'd be satisfied if Americans' fructose consumption only managed to drop back to pre-WW2 levels (less than 25g per day).

  14. ZellZ
    Anyone notice how "Grandpa" gets to have lots of fresh air & exercise as he BIKE RIDES to work (wow, guess he didn't live far from work)? Also, Grandpa gets to sit OUTSIDE on a Bench eating his lunch, whereas his less fortunate grandson has to eat lunch still tied to his desk. Also, why does grandson have TWO pieces of white bread garbage toast w/tons of jelly on it, when Grandpa made do w/just one slice? Could it be that Grandpa was having lots of luscious steaks & pork, fish & chops for dinners, instead of crappy old takeout & other processed fare? Hey, you know, maybe Grandpa could afford to drink the Occasional coke, but grandson is probably sucking down the stuff on a regular basis (as well as assorted "energy" drinks & so forth, not to mention all the GMO crap & other awful stuff he has to eat). Sorry, Coke, there is No Comparison here that is Valid as to your drink. The only thing that stands out for me is that Grandpa was a lot healthier than his grandson, and much of that comes from having more leisure time, better food & less sugar.
  15. Low-fat Richard
    ZM

    "Animal models are done in order to demonstrate cause & effect in ANIMALS".

    The only problem is that evolution has predictive power and a stimulus is likely going to have similar effect across all closely related species. That's why I think diet-heart denialism and creationism has a lot in common.

    The foundation of diet-heart was after all build upon thousands of animal studies showing that saturated fat dietary cholesterol accelerates atherosclerosis across virtually every type of vertebrate, and that they are the sine qua nons for the dietary modification of experimental atherosclerosis. This includes mammalian, avian and fish species- herbivores, omnivores and carnivores, and over one dozen different species of nonhuman primates. Again this cannot be attributed to the way that the animal was raised as when taking into consideration the amount of antioxidants and carotenoids as well as the lack of cholesterol, tropical plant fats high in lauric, myristic and palmitic acids will also accelerate atherosclerosis in animals to a similar degree as saturated animal fats.

    No of this implies that sugar is healthy food to comsume, however the sugar story is just not comparable to SFA and dietary cholesterol. It seems that sugar is fairly innocent bystander (often associated with foods high in SFA; "guilt by association") and causes harm only if it induces weight gain.

  16. FrankG
    Cultures/countries such as Cuba, Columbia, Costa-Rica have traditionally showed very high table sugar intake, yet obesity, diabetes and CHD have been rare in these populations.
    ...
    Kempner’s rice-fruit diet which was based on white-rice, fruit, fruit juice and sugar resulted in weight loss in his patients.
    ...
    In the Women’s Health Initiative the control group who were advised to lower fat intake significantly increased the intake of sugar and showed trends towards lower body weight and waist circumference. If anything there was a slight trend towards a lower risk of diabetes in the control group.
    ...
    In studies on non-human primates sucrose diets (70% of sugar) have mediated reversal of coronary heart disease...
    ...
    In healthy people sugar feeding improves insulin sensitivity. This is what happens when a sucrose diet is fed to healthy males (70% calories from sucrose).

    So you DON'T mean to imply that "sugar is healthy"???

    In what other way are we supposed to interpret the "research" that you present?

    Taking these at face value: it seems that sugar IS a health food that SHOULD be consumed in quantity (70% of calories). In which case, plenty of coca-cola would be a great way to meet that target... surely?

    Did common-sense just bite you in the a$$?!?

    BTW Cuba? A country that has WWII type food rationing traditionally showed very high table sugar intake? LOL

    ---

    Your problem here is that you try to dress things up in pseudoscience but it is not plausible or credible because your reasoning is not based in the scientific method but rather a vegan ideology of Eat Anything But Animals... Even If It Kills You

    Fortunately, and as Dr Andreas wrote above "It seems a lot of people aren’t fooled."

    The "advice" you offer is not helping but rather harming and even killing people. I do hope you get well paid for it Richard... or whatever you real name is.

  17. Val
    There is obvious association that Coca Cola is trying to get across ..i.e. that sugar is good for you since grandpa is skinny everybody in the commercial is skinny everybody appears happy and healthy eating their white flour bread and pasta (all sugar) and if you do get fat and become diabetic...well its not coke that did it look at what these people are eating..it must have been the pasta and bread that did it ..NOOOOT Coca Cola.....
  18. Z.M.
    Richard: "The only problem is that evolution has predictive power and a stimulus is likely going to have similar effect across all closely related species."

    No, there is a reason why treatments have to be tested in humans before it is recommended to the public and why animal studies are regarded as one of the weakest forms of evidence. Hell, sometimes it is difficult to extrapolate data within the same species e.g. from male to female or different ages or from samples to the population because of unrepresentation. It's a good thing vegans are not in charge because we would be in a far worse state than we already are right now because of poor extrapolations from animal data.

    Richard: "The foundation of diet-heart was after all build upon thousands of animal studies showing that saturated fat dietary cholesterol accelerates atherosclerosis across virtually every type of vertebrate"

    The entire foundation is very shaky because human data have failed to confirm any harm of saturated fat (btw atherosclerosis can regress in the presence of saturated fat in animals) and even animal data puts doubt into the idea that cholesterol per se causes atherosclerosis because large differences in atherosclerosis can be seen in animal studies despite similar cholesterol levels between groups.

    Richard: "It seems that sugar is fairly innocent bystander"

    So sugar is a fairly innocent bystander but cholesterol could not be?

    Richard: "often associated with foods high in SFA; "guilt by association"

    Your interpretation here depends on the false notion that saturated fat is harmful. It also goes the other way i.e. saturated fat is usually associated with other unhealthy habits (like high sugar consumption) which may bias the results toward harm or dilute any protective effect saturated fat may have. Also, funny you mention guilt by association because vegans have no problem committing this fallacy by comparing saturated fat to smoking.

  19. Low-fat Richard
    ZM,

    the very reason why animal experiments are conducted is because they are such a good proxy for humans and thus important in biomedical research. Learn the basics, please!

    The importance of animals in biomedical reseach
    http://www.slideshare.net/Medresearch/the-importance-of-animals-in-bi...

    See also "Animal experiments in biomedical research" by Franco 2013.

    In the case of saturated fats, we are not talking about some outlier "rat studies" but actually a body of evidence which covers a vast amount of different species with the dozen different non-human primate species being the best proxies for humans. This is very different than the Taubesians whose claims are based off a much more limited set of animal data. And yes some species are not affected by saturated fat. Rats for example carry all their cholesterol in the HDL fraction and do not make a good diet-heart targets for humans.

    It is not uncommon for food additives to be banned in certain nations when it is found in a very limited number of animal species that the additives can cause cancer. Furthermore, animal studies have actually been considered when creating guidelines. One example of this is the 1984 NIH consensus on lowering blood cholesterol to prevent heart disease. When presented with this much data from animal studies it is nearly religious nonsense to suggest that it has no relevance to humans. You seem to suggest that the harms of elevated LDL cholesterol is dependent of the mechanism used (SFA induced elevation of LDL not harmful?). This position indeed requires a serious leap of fundamentalism. All free-ranging mammalians have very low cholesterol levels. SFA and dietary cholesterol elevates serum cholesterol on humans and there's about 500 metabolic feeding studies that confirms this, population that have high SFA intake have very high mean serum cholesterol levels as well.

    I concur that there is substantial inter-individual differences in regards to response of the dose. Some people are genetically protected from CHD and so on, however this has very little relevance to the issue at hand.

    Cholesterol, coronary heart disease, and stroke in the Asia Pacific region

    "Numerous other observational studies, particularly in men, have demonstrated a strong, continuous, graded, and independent association between cholesterol and the risk of CHD.1–,6 The current data clearly extend these findings to Asian populations with substantially lower average levels of cholesterol, and confirm that effects are similar in men and women </b"

    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/4/563.long

    It's convenient from you to refer me as a vegan and imply that my arguments are not valid. This rhetoric gimmick is known as "poisoning the well". In science, the strength of the evidence is all that matters, not whether the messenger is a vegan, a pedophile or murderer.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

    Reply: #21
  20. Low-fat Richard
    From Germany:

    The importance of animal experiments for research
    http://www.drze.de/in-focus/animal-experiments-in-research

  21. FrankG
    And yet you have still neglected to answer the very valid point raised by Z.M. just above...

    "Animal models are done in order to demonstrate cause & effect in ANIMALS. When the human studies contradict the animal studies, being a human, I put far more weight to the human studies."

    Your arguments are invalid because: they do not stand up to even superficial scrutiny, they are not even plausible, let alone credible... particularly as you skulk behind a smokescreen of anonymity, multiple pseudonyms and proxy servers. In addition, your comments are self-contradictory, as I demonstrated just above.

    Whether your motivation is vegan zealotry that blinds you to the scientific method, or financial reward from those vested interests who have much to profit by continuance of the status quo makes little odds here; you have shown yourself time and time again to be neither a trustworthy nor a respected source.

    When it comes to the "strength of the evidence" quantity does not make up for quality. What is that saying? "Empty vessels make the most noise".

  22. Z.M.
    Richard: "the very reason why animal experiments are conducted is because they are such a good proxy for humans and thus important in biomedical research."

    No, you are putting far too much weight to animal evidence and even when human studies contradict it you still think that the animal model is correct. As I said before you have it backwards. Please note, I have never said that animal models are useless or have not contributed to knowledge or advances but one has to realize their limitations. Even in the case of cholesterol animal models do not support your position as strongly as you think and in fact undermines your position that cholesterol is a major factor in atherosclerosis. You can only come to the conclusion that you do through selective interpretations and ignoring contradictory data or other plausible hypotheses.

    Richard:"In the case of saturated fats, we are not talking about some outlier "rat studies" but actually a body of evidence which covers a vast amount of different species with the dozen different non-human primate species being the best proxies for humans. "

    So what. Such a thing has never been found in humans which undermines your whole "non-human primate species being the best proxies for humans" idea.

    Richard:"SFA and dietary cholesterol elevates serum cholesterol on humans and there's about 500 metabolic feeding studies that confirms this, population that have high SFA intake have very high mean serum cholesterol levels as well."

    and 1000000 feeding experiments would not change the fact that there is very little evidence that saturated fat is harmful in humans.

    Richard: "It's convenient from you to refer me as a vegan and imply that my arguments are not valid. "

    Keep putting words in my mouth. I have never implied such a thing.

    Reply: #25
  23. Christoph Dollis
    Reply: #24
  24. FrankG
    Thanks Christoph.

    I particularly appreciated this comment by a Pete H...

    "The ubiquitous availability of processed foods when treating overweight, obesity, and [Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs)] is like attempting to treat gambling addiction while the player is still in the casino with bets in play. A related analogy being that relevant treatment guidelines are developed according to research funded by the casino operators’ industry association."

  25. Paul
    @ Z.M.
    Low-Fat Richard is (and I am repeating myself for which I apologize) a troll which pops-up under different names pushing ad infinitum the same agenda. Yaaawwwn.
    P.S. in dietary intervention research, animals present very limiting model
  26. Low-fat Richard
    @ZM

    "Even in the case of cholesterol animal models do not support your position as strongly as you think and in fact undermines your position that cholesterol is a major factor in atherosclerosis. You can only come to the conclusion that you do through selective interpretations and ignoring contradictory data or other plausible hypotheses".

    You are probably too naive to even understand how silly you are with your line of thought. Sure it's not the cholesterol, it's the wheat, bacterial infections and lectins that are behind CHD.

    You are like Don Quijote. Respect for being against the world. Cholesterol denialism is futile. Ever thought about the chances that the scientist paid to understand the science behind cholesterol, saturated fat and heart disease probably knows their drill better than you do. Let the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for disease control and prevention and the American heart association educate you aabout what causes atherosclerosis.

    http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/hbc/
    http://www.cdc.gov/cholesterol/faqs.htm#1
    http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/Cholesterol_UCM_...

    Every single public health authority around world embraces cholesterol theory and places diet-heart more or less at the center when it comes to public health measures in regards to diet. This kind of overwhelming unanimity makes cholesterol theory comparable to other popular theories such as evolution, law of gravity, climate change, etc.

    National Academies of Science Food and Nutrition Board has stated that humans have no dietary requirement for either cholesterol or saturated fatty acids, but any incremental increase in consumption of either cholesterol or saturated fats increases the risk of cardiovascular disease
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490&page=422

    The conservative American Heart Association recommends not consuming more than an average of 200 mg of cholesterol per day.

    The British NHS:

    "Eat less saturated fat"
    http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/Eat-less-saturated-fat.aspx

    Replies: #27, #28
  27. FrankG
    National Cholesterol Educational Program - Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III Update 2004: Financial Disclosure
    http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/atp3upd04_disclose.htm

    No less than 72 financial conflicts of interest with companies who marketed cholesterol lowering agents at the time, among 8 of the 9 invited committee members.

    Discussed here by Dr Malcolm Kendrick...
    http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2013/08/02/who-shall-guard-the-guardians/

    "Of course, as people have stated to me, the mere fact that there were seventy two financial conflicts of interest does not mean that the guidelines themselves were biased. But you know what, I don’t believe it. Imagine if eight Supreme Court judges, ruling on any issue, had seventy two direct financial conflicts of interest to do with that issue…..Well, the outcry would never end."

  28. Paul
    @ Low-fat
    your naiveté (although I am sure you are not that stupid, you do it for well paid purpose, but we went through it few times before, didn't we) is as long as your "deliberations".
    Reply: #29
  29. FrankG
    Like I said Paul.. "empty vessels make the most noise" :-)

    He must still think that we can be subdued with quantity rather than quality. LOL

  30. Z.M.
    OK Richard. I don't know what you are hoping to accomplish but no one here buys it. Just accept that others have different views and move on.
    Reply: #31
  31. Paul
    He won't Z.M., he is handsomely paid to do it.
    Reply: #38
  32. LeonRover
    "This kind of overwhelming unanimity makes cholesterol theory comparable to other popular theories such as evolution, law of gravity, climate change."

    No.

    This kind of overwhelming unanimity makes cholesterol theory comparable to other popular theories such as phlogiston before Lavoisier, and epicycles before Newton's inverse square hypothesis.

    Sláinte

  33. Paul
    The goal of Diabetes Industry is not to prevent diabetes but to 'treat' it with patented drugs. The role of all those trolls here is to prevent as many people as possible from NOT developing diabetes

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732398060457903109124459...

    Reply: #34
  34. FrankG
    I thought you had mistyped Paul but then re-read and noted the double-negative :-)

    With our learned friend posting data about how increased sugar consumption in the WHI control group led to "a slight trend towards a lower risk of diabetes" and how important it is for us all to get at least 70% of our energy from sugar (sucrose) ...it seems clear to me that he is all about keeping the money rolling in for diabetes treatment, rather than a common sense approach to prevention, with a reasonable dietary adjustment.

  35. Paul
    Sorry Frank, English is my second language; which is not an excuse for bad grammar.
  36. Jean B.
    I looked through the comments and didn't see this addressed so...

    We also can't drink Coke like grandpa did because in grandpa's day Coke's ingredients were far different. Even as late as the 1960s (according to a date that someone had put on a bottle; I'm not so sure it wasn't the 50s or 40s), it contained the following:
    "Sugar, water, phosphoric acid, caffeine, extractives from coca leaves (cocaine removed) and cola nuts, and other flavoring material, colored with caramel". Of course, if one goes back farther, there are other real ingredients. I'm not saying that one should drink this old version either, but pointing out that if you drink today's Coca-Cola, it is not the same beverage.

  37. robert
    I drink coke and the likes like my grandpa when he was young - not at all. The stuff simply wasn't available back then. End of story.
  38. cave horse
    Paul: Do you think the USDA/FDA trolls get paid more than the NSA/CIA/FBI ones?
    Reply: #39
  39. Paul
    Who says they are USDA/FDA ?
    Reply: #40
  40. Murray
    Black ops for big pharma? One would expect they have war rooms going full time these days with the growing body of evidence undermining the fat and cholesterol hypotheses. The recent Danish study showing lowest all cause mortality with cholesterol between 5 and 8 mmol/l must have them stamping in rage. How did such research get funded and published? Where were our people on the funding committees and editorial boards?
up

Leave a Reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Pictures of participants through Gravatar