Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, February 03, 2014

Michael Kay opens show on YES with shot at Mike Francesa by throwing Diet Coke in trash can

Aspartame says goodbye forever…

Michael Kay kicked off his gig as Francesa’s replacement on the Yankees’ station Monday with a silent dis to the man who anchored the afternoon programming on the network for a dozen years.

As YES’ cameras focused in on Kay and sidekick Don LaGreca, a bottle of Diet Coke was in clear sight. Unlike Francesa’s shows, the label was still on the bottle.

While Kay began his monologue, he picked up the bottle of soda and deposited it into a trash bin that was raised by LaGreca for the YES lenses to capture. The pair made no mention of it in the opening moments of the show.

Kay was immediately ripped by viewers on Twitter, and when it was brought up to Francesa — who is currently without a simulcast home after his relationship with YES came to an end on Sunday — he dismissed the ESPN-98.7 duo.

...Off the air, Francesa was even more harsh, telling Newsday that Kay and LaGreca’s stunt was a “classless, loser move from two guys I have been burying in the ratings for over a decade.”

If this is what counts as a shot across the bow, Francesa would surely consider the weapon “a peashootah.”

Repoz Posted: February 03, 2014 at 09:24 PM | 128 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: media

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. john_halfz Posted: February 03, 2014 at 09:38 PM (#4651116)
Jesus. What in the world is YES doing? Francesa is a huge blowhard. But Kay is a bigger blowhard. And he's stupid, to boot.

He also compared people who preserve the tradition of not mentioning no-hitters in progress to...Nazis. So there's that.
   2. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: February 03, 2014 at 09:46 PM (#4651118)
This seems like about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
   3. JJ1986 Posted: February 03, 2014 at 09:51 PM (#4651122)
What kind of ratings do simulcasts of sports radio shows get on tv? 100 viewers? 50?
   4. ASmitty Posted: February 03, 2014 at 10:00 PM (#4651130)
Idiocracy is upon us.
   5. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: February 03, 2014 at 10:07 PM (#4651136)
And here I thought, when I read the headline, that this was some stupid stunt in protest of last night's Super Bowl commercial. It's always heartening to know that as stupid as I can imagine that things could be, they can always be a little stupider ...
   6. Darren Posted: February 03, 2014 at 10:13 PM (#4651141)
Looks like that soda had what I call, fungibility!
   7. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 03, 2014 at 10:15 PM (#4651142)
Idiocracy is upon us.

Idiocracy already had a long reign on YES during the Francessa administration.
   8. Publius Publicola Posted: February 03, 2014 at 10:25 PM (#4651146)
But Kay is a bigger blowhard. And he's stupid, to boot.


Kay might be a bigger blowhard than Francesa (which would make Kay the biggest blowhard in the world) but no way is he dumber. Francesa is dumber than 10 of Tommy Lasorda's dogs.
   9. Rough Carrigan Posted: February 03, 2014 at 10:39 PM (#4651153)
What kind of moron is Francessa to get so worked up over it?

Diet coke is vile, unhealthy #### anyway.
   10. Morty Causa Posted: February 03, 2014 at 10:42 PM (#4651154)
Does YES have any advertisers?
   11. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: February 03, 2014 at 10:43 PM (#4651156)
Media personality A insults media personality B, has this ever not been bottom news?
   12. Repoz Posted: February 03, 2014 at 11:14 PM (#4651170)
Nobody know less about more things than Don LaGreca.
   13. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: February 03, 2014 at 11:31 PM (#4651179)
What kind of ratings do simulcasts of sports radio shows get on tv? 100 viewers? 50?


I dunno, but Cox Sports New England does an afternoon simulcast of Felger and Mazz. NESN simulcasts Dennis and Callahan in the morning. I suspect it is cheap programming for these RSNs.
   14. Random Transaction Generator Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:00 AM (#4651190)
What kind of ratings do simulcasts of sports radio shows get on tv? 100 viewers? 50?


It must do well in some places, because both major sports networks in Canada (TSN/Rogers Sportsnet) simulcast about 11 total hours of radio each day.
TSN does it for their morning show and afternoon drive time show (for about 4 hours).
Sportsnet does it for their lunchtime hockey show (1hr), their afternoon set (3hrs) and their primetime show (3hrs).

Those afternoon hours are hard to fill without resorting to the usual stuff (poker, darts, EPL magazine shows), so both networks figure they have some popular radio talents (a few of which are also TV guys at other times) and they might as well cash in on them.
   15. ptodd Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:07 AM (#4651219)
So the 21 st Century Fox era (majority control) starts off with a bang.

That aspartame in Diet Coke metabolizes to methanol. 6 bottles of that and you have consumed more methanol than is permitted in potable water (assuming an average daily consumption). Deadly.
   16. baerga1 Posted: February 04, 2014 at 05:29 AM (#4651223)
The above comment made me curious and I found this: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-artificial-sweeteners-safe/

"Some of the things we ingest are directly absorbed and utilized unchanged, like water. But most of what we ingest is metabolized. Aspartame is metabolized. It does indeed break down into aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. Aspartic acid and phenylalanine are amino acids that we need to survive. Methanol is produced in small amounts by the metabolism of many foods; it is harmless in small amounts. A cup of tomato juice produces six times as much methanol as a cup of diet soda. Methanol is completely metabolized via formaldehyde to formic acid; no formaldehyde remains. Lastly, the formic acid is broken down into water and carbon dioxide. Human studies show that formic acid is eliminated faster than it is formed after ingestion of aspartic acid. So yes, those compounds appear, but so what? We get much larger amounts of the same compounds from our food, and they don’t hurt us."

Artificial things like diet soda still scare me, mind you (and I avoid them on principle), but I'm not sure the methanol thing is such a big deal. Although "sciencebasedmedicine.org" does sound a bit suspicious..
   17. Jim Wisinski Posted: February 04, 2014 at 07:29 AM (#4651228)
Artificial sweeteners cause cancer in lab rats and don't do much to help you lose weight anyway. You're better off drinking regular soda, not that doing that is a great idea for your health either.
   18. Dr. Vaux Posted: February 04, 2014 at 07:40 AM (#4651230)
For God's sake, this again?

1. Diet soda doesn't have calories.

2. Regular soda has lots of calories.

Therefore, drinking diet soda will not cause you to gain weight, but regular soda will, all else being equal.

Diet soda will also not cause you to lose weight. Consuming fewer calories in total, across all the food and drink you consume, will cause you to lose weight. The amount of weight it will cause you to lose will vary based on certain factors, but it will cause you to lose weight.

Period. That's it. This kind of misinformation

You're better off drinking regular soda


is nothing short of insanity. In fact, it could actually kill someone.
   19. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: February 04, 2014 at 08:43 AM (#4651233)
A cup of tomato juice produces six times as much methanol as a cup of diet soda.

So yes, those compounds appear, but so what? We get much larger amounts of the same compounds from our food, and they don’t hurt us.


What this quote is missing is that no one drinks a "cup" (8 oz) of diet soda. Its likely that he average diet soda drinker consumes way more than 6 cups daily.
   20. Rants Mulliniks Posted: February 04, 2014 at 09:45 AM (#4651255)
Call me crazy, but I'll drink the juice of a vegetable over a lab-concocted chemical 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.
   21. TerpNats Posted: February 04, 2014 at 10:15 AM (#4651274)
What Kay did is silly, but is it any worse than his one-time hack cohort John Sterling doing the Kitten Bowl? If he thinks that gig will make him as beloved as Harry Kalas (late voice of the Puppy Bowl), he's got another thing coming. Sterling broadcasting about kittens is animal abuse.
   22. Ulysses S. Fairsmith Posted: February 04, 2014 at 10:32 AM (#4651289)
Why is a pissing match between some local TV guys news?
   23. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 10:34 AM (#4651291)
If you don't want calories, drink water, coffee or tea.
   24. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 10:34 AM (#4651293)
Why is a pissing match between some local TV guys news?


Because NY is supposedly the center of the ####### universe?
   25. BrianBrianson Posted: February 04, 2014 at 10:37 AM (#4651297)
Artificial things like diet soda still scare me


The idea that there's a difference between what's "artificial" and "natural" is entirely artificial and arbitrary anyhow, so it's not worth sweating it. Drinking Diet Sodas may cause cancer, but so does eating meat cooked over a fire, living in a brick house, and so on. The downside of all those funky artificial medical treatments is that we live long enough to get diseases like cancer.
   26. GregD Posted: February 04, 2014 at 10:41 AM (#4651300)
Artificial things like diet soda still scare me
You should definitely put down the artificial Diet Coke and eat the natural castor bean
   27. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 10:49 AM (#4651304)
Its likely that he average diet soda drinker consumes way more than 6 cups daily.


I drink one, maybe two cups daily. I don't know anyone who drinks more than that. Now, don't get me started on coffee drinkers...

Artificial sweeteners cause cancer in lab rats


If you feed them 10 times their body weight daily over a long period, yes.
   28. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: February 04, 2014 at 10:58 AM (#4651313)
I drink one, maybe two cups daily.


1 can is a cup and a half. 2 cans is really common, and that's 3 cups. Furthermore, juice cups or glasses are about 4 oz. Yes, it's possible to exceed that, but the most common form of beverage delivery is 4 oz juice, 12 oz soda. That fact alone drives the soda consumption way higher than the juice consumption for the average person.
   29. Rants Mulliniks Posted: February 04, 2014 at 11:12 AM (#4651327)
WHO: Cancer cases to soar by 70% over the next 20 years

I guess that means we're all going to be living to 115 years old, eh Brian?
   30. GregD Posted: February 04, 2014 at 11:23 AM (#4651337)
The growth of cervical and lung cancer in the developing world is related to soda consumption?

I personally expect cancer rates to rise much more quickly than that; as we get better and better at helping people survive strokes and heart attacks, people will live long enough to die from cancer. This will of course be most pronounced in nations that currently have low life expectancy. As people live longer, they will age into vastly larger numbers of cancers, right?
   31. BrianBrianson Posted: February 04, 2014 at 11:24 AM (#4651338)
Rants - if you look at historical life expectancies, they've been increasing with a very linear slope of 0.2 years/year. So, no, I don't expect life expectancies to hit 115 until ~2190. I'm 32, extrapolating my life expectancy and my age into the future, I should expect to live to 90 (on average, and obviously I know some things that bias that). But in general, longer life expectancies increase cancer rates (as does, of course, the ability to distinguish consumption from wasting with new-fangled medical equipment).

If you want to avoid cancer, ditch the brick house for wood. That'll help a lot. Stay the #### away from bananas - rife with radioactivity. Don't worry about the diet coke (though personally I prefer beer, which is a plus and minus in health effect).
   32. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 11:29 AM (#4651343)
Why is a pissing match between some local TV guys news?


Good question.
   33. Rants Mulliniks Posted: February 04, 2014 at 11:35 AM (#4651348)
Life expectancy has increased for sure. But that doesn't mean people didn't live to be old. For the last century and a half anyway, once you made it past childhood, you had a very good chance of living into your 70's. Of course if you were a coal miner or something like that not so much, but that's because you were breathing in coal dust all day.

Ben Franklin lived to be 84. John Adams lived to be 90. Thomas Jefferson lived to be 83. J. Q. Adams lived to be 80. James Madison lived to be 85. Yes, these were wealthy people, but they also lived ridiculously stressful lives. To pretend that cancer isn't a modern disease just like Alzheimer's, and autism, is just silly. The things we have put in and on our bodies for the last few generations are taking a toll.

   34. PreservedFish Posted: February 04, 2014 at 11:37 AM (#4651353)
Yeah, mortality rate is a weird statistic. It's a pie chart whose area never changes. If you reduce deaths by one cause, you're increasing deaths by another cause. (I'm always amused when I see claims that one thing or other "reduces mortality by X%.")

I think the comment above about diet coke not helping you lose weight was referring to studies that have shown that real people that have switched from regular soda to diet soda do not, in fact, lose weight. I think the theory is that people that switch to diet soda almost always replace the calories elsewhere in their diets. I don't know if it's because the diet soda itself monkeys with your appetite or metabolism or something, or if it's just because these tend to be fat people with poor impulse control to begin with.

To me, diet soda is one of the most vile flavors on Earth.
   35. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4651355)
To pretend that cancer isn't a modern disease just like Alzheimer's, and autism, is just silly.


The name "cancer" was coined by Hippocrates, who was diagnosing cases 2400 years ago. We have an Egyptian papyrus from 1600 BC that describes a procedure for treating breast cancer.
   36. Rants Mulliniks Posted: February 04, 2014 at 11:43 AM (#4651359)
The growth of cervical and lung cancer in the developing world is related to soda consumption?


It is certainly related to abandoning traditional foods and adopting crap processed western food. The link between processed food and poor health has been well established for over 100 years.
   37. BrianBrianson Posted: February 04, 2014 at 11:49 AM (#4651364)
The things we have put in and on our bodies for the last few generations are taking a toll.


Dinosaurs got cancer. Yeah, more modern things cause certain types of cancer (e.g., lung cancer from smoking went way up then down, but other air pollutants are a big source). Sure, people lived to by 90 in the 1700s, but people also live to be 90 today. Life expectancy is increasing year by year, partially because kids are less likely to die, and partially because adults are living longer.

The use of refined sugars clearly plays a big role in getting tooth cavities - that's really a modern disease. Cancer is as ancient as ####.
   38. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 11:53 AM (#4651366)
To pretend that cancer isn't a modern disease just like Alzheimer's, and autism, is just silly.

The name "cancer" was coined by Hippocrates, who was diagnosing cases 2400 years ago. We have an Egyptian papyrus from 1600 BC that describes a procedure for treating breast cancer.


Alois Alzheimer diagnosed the disease bearing his name when New York didn't even have a major league baseball team. Considering Ramon y Cajal hadn't figured out effective ways of staining neural tissue until that approximate time that's a pretty good turnaround from assessment to diagnosis.
   39. Rants Mulliniks Posted: February 04, 2014 at 11:53 AM (#4651367)
I never said cancer was unknown, just that its enormous prevalence today can in no way be solely or evenly largely attributed to increased lifespan. I'm not suggesting it has nothing to do with it, but its not the driver.
   40. Rants Mulliniks Posted: February 04, 2014 at 11:55 AM (#4651371)
#38 The book "Dying for a Hamburger" is a great read if you want to learn about Alzheimer's, CJD, and kuru. It is the author's well-researched contention that all Alzheimer's is related to CJD (human form of mad cow disease), and that it is related to industrial beef processing.
   41. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:05 PM (#4651379)

I never said cancer was unknown, just that its enormous prevalence today can in no way be solely or evenly largely attributed to increased lifespan. I'm not suggesting it has nothing to do with it, but its not the driver.


There are more documented cases of cancer now because more documentation is being done. If you don't look for something you wont find it. Doesn't mean people weren't getting cancer back in the day.
   42. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4651385)
Ben Franklin lived to be 84. John Adams lived to be 90. Thomas Jefferson lived to be 83. J. Q. Adams lived to be 80. James Madison lived to be 85. Yes, these were wealthy people, but they also lived ridiculously stressful lives. To pretend that cancer isn't a modern disease just like Alzheimer's, and autism, is just silly.

Jefferson had prostate cancer when he died. John Adams' daughter died of breast cancer.
   43. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:16 PM (#4651386)
Because NY is supposedly the center of the ####### universe?


no, because NY is the center of the ####### universe.
   44. TerpNats Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4651412)
The downside of all those funky artificial medical treatments is that we live long enough to get diseases like cancer.
Well, as Joe Jackson sang...
   45. GregD Posted: February 04, 2014 at 12:56 PM (#4651417)
There is a developed (but hugely controversial and not widely accepted) medical view that Lincoln was suffering from cancer in his last years. Grant died of cancer, though presumably the cigars are to blame there. Caesar Rodney's grotesque cancer was no doubt a product of diet coke, though
   46. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: February 04, 2014 at 01:03 PM (#4651424)
IIRC, some people have argued that diet sodas don't help you lose weight because the sweetness tricks your body into craving more sweet things.
   47. Canker Soriano Posted: February 04, 2014 at 01:09 PM (#4651429)
I drink one, maybe two cups daily. I don't know anyone who drinks more than that.

I drink at least a liter a day (that's about 3 cans' worth).

If you have one can with each meal, that's a liter right there. It adds up in a hurry.
   48. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 01:27 PM (#4651438)
I drink one, maybe two cups daily. I don't know anyone who drinks more than that.

I drink at least a liter a day (that's about 3 cans' worth).


Don't/can't drink cokes anymore (just as well, of course), but when I did, the higher figure was a lot closer to normal for me. More like 6 cans on workdays.
   49. BrianBrianson Posted: February 04, 2014 at 01:32 PM (#4651440)
I never said cancer was unknown, just that its enormous prevalence today can in no way be solely or evenly largely attributed to increased lifespan. I'm not suggesting it has nothing to do with it, but its not the driver.


No, it's enormous prevalence today is easily attributed to its enormous prevalence in animals for the last 80 million years. Humans are more noticably dying of cancer because we're not dying of smallpox, so we have to die of something, and we're far better at figuring out why people died.
   50. SouthSideRyan Posted: February 04, 2014 at 01:33 PM (#4651441)
[47]and yet that's still 2 cups shy of miserlou's "average" I can't imagine the number is anywhere close to 48 oz a day for the average diet coke drinker. Unless the people drinking them are drinking them all day long (really you have it with breakfast?) it doesn't add up. And where are you getting 4 ounce juices outside of Ray Romano on dr Katz??
   51. BrianBrianson Posted: February 04, 2014 at 01:35 PM (#4651443)
Cancer death rates for Men since the 1930s

Hey Look, they're all flat or going down, except lung cancer, which shoots up, and starts falling once smoking is no longer cool.
   52. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: February 04, 2014 at 01:39 PM (#4651447)
It is the author's well-researched contention that all Alzheimer's is related to CJD (human form of mad cow disease)


So, Denny Crane isn't that far off after all.
   53. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: February 04, 2014 at 01:43 PM (#4651451)
And where are you getting 4 ounce juices outside of Ray Romano on dr Katz??


I drink my juice out of 4 oz juice glasses in my cupboard. That's not to say I or other juice drinkers will not drink more than that. But when the default delivery system of one is 3 times larger than another, it's likely the average drinker of the one will drink 3 times as much. And when the default time of day to drink one is a much shorter fraction of the day that the other, the consumer of the latter will likely drink more.
   54. Baseballs Most Beloved Figure Posted: February 04, 2014 at 01:47 PM (#4651454)
I come to BTF for the compelling baseball talk but I stay for the pseudoscience discussions.
   55. Morty Causa Posted: February 04, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#4651459)
The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.
   56. dr. scott Posted: February 04, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4651473)
I used to drink about 0.75 to 1 liter of pepsi a day. I also had a snickers with my pepsi for breakfast. Grad school was cruel. I now however only drink water or alcohol, and 95% of that is beer, which for the most part is healthier than coke (barley, hops, and yeast..) but obviously has its issues, many of which do not affect me in as negative of a way as some (happy drunk, not addicted etc).

The portion issue is is quite true though. As I've been trying to loose a few pounds I found just going from pints to 12 oz beers solved a large amount of the problem. I tend to have the same number of beers with either way, but its less total volume, and significantly fewer calories at the end of the night. 3 pints of a 7.5% IPA is about 900 calories (ouch) 3 bottles is 675. then I switched to more pale ales, and 3 bottles is 525.

Beer week starts on Friday though, so I just need to do a lot more cycling...
   57. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: February 04, 2014 at 02:22 PM (#4651478)
As a physician, I really have to disagree with the comment that Diet Pop is just as bad as regular Pop. Really, #18 is on the ball.

I just want to say be careful regarding fruit juices. They are loaded with calories and most people get enough vitamins that the vitamins in the juices don't really improve their health. It's better to actually eat fruit and vegetables than it is to drink juice.

There's a reason why we tell people with diabetes that they should drink orange juice or pop when they are having hypoglycemic episodes.
   58. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 02:29 PM (#4651484)
The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.

I'm pretty sure the vessel with the pestle has the pellet with the poison. The chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.
   59. The Good Face Posted: February 04, 2014 at 02:39 PM (#4651492)
I just want to say be careful regarding fruit juices. They are loaded with calories and most people get enough vitamins that the vitamins in the juices don't really improve their health. It's better to actually eat fruit and vegetables than it is to drink juice.


So much this. Eating the fruit will ensure you get all the nutrients it has to offer, including a healthy dose of fiber, much of which is lost in the translation from fruit to juice. Plus many store bought fruit juices have added sugar, over and above what's naturally in the juice. The vast majority of overweight people I know drink a ton of calories in the form of juice, soft drinks, energy drinks, alcohol, or some combination of the above.
   60. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: February 04, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4651493)
IIRC, some people have argued that diet sodas don't help you lose weight because the sweetness tricks your body into craving more sweet things.

I hear people repeat this, but always as "I heard this somewhere". Any actual studies? It seems to me to be the kind of thing that someone just throws out there and it get repeated. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If your body is going to be tricked, wouldn't it get tricked into thinking it got sweets?
   61. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: February 04, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4651495)
I can't imagine the number is anywhere close to 48 oz a day for the average diet coke drinker. Unless the people drinking them are drinking them all day long (really you have it with breakfast?) it doesn't add up.

I'm certainly not going to claim that I'm average or anything, but I probably drank 8 cans of diet coke a day. Basically, I didn't drink anything else, ever. Rarely drank water, rarely drank alcohol. I certainly did have a diet coke with breakfast. Two before lunch. Probably the equivalent of two at lunch. Another couple in the afternoon and then another couple at dinner. Probably another one after dinner at some point. And some days would be higher, like if I had a long car trip I'd probably get a large at McDonald's or something.

This was pretty consistent for me for about 15 years, I'd say.
   62. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4651498)
I'm pretty sure the vessel with the pestle has the pellet with the poison. The chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.


The chalice with the phallus and the goo that is blue. Pass it down.
   63. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4651500)
IIRC, some people have argued that diet sodas don't help you lose weight because the sweetness tricks your body into craving more sweet things.

I hear people repeat this, but always as "I heard this somewhere". Any actual studies?


I remember reading about this last year and I know the study was done at Yale, a colleague was involved in doing some of the analysis. That's all I got for ya.

Edit: AHA!
   64. Canker Soriano Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4651504)
Unless the people drinking them are drinking them all day long (really you have it with breakfast?) it doesn't add up.

Yep, with breakfast. Or instead of breakfast. (Soda and cold pizza for breakfast is just the best.)

One in the AM, one at lunch, maybe one in the afternoon for a pickup, possibly one at dinner... it's pretty easy to get to 1-2 liters a day without it seeming like you're just guzzling it down. It's not like downing a 2-liter over the course of a ballgame.

If you're drinking it in place of water, then 8 8-oz glasses wouldn't seem that far-fetched.
   65. Morty Causa Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:08 PM (#4651507)
I'm pretty sure the vessel with the pestle has the pellet with the poison. The chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.

"Get it?" "Got it." "Good."

The Flagon with the Dragon
   66. theboyqueen Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4651509)
As a physician, I really have to disagree with the comment that Diet Pop is just as bad as regular Pop.


As a fellow physician, I would encourage you to disclaim this statement as your opinion, as there is not really any actual evidence to support it (there are plenty of industry-sponsored studies demonstrating the "safety" of artificial sweeteners, but nobody has been able to prove there is any health benefit to using them versus sugar). The ADA/AHA position paper on the matter (Circulation. 2012; 126: 509-519) from 2012 reports the following in its conclusion:

"At this time, there are insufficient data to determine conclusively whether the use of [non-nutritive sweeteners] to displace caloric sweeteners in beverages and foods reduces added sugars or carbohydrate intakes, or benefits appetite, energy balance, body weight, or cardiometabolic risk factors."

My own opinion is that regular consumption of Coke/Pepsi diet or otherwise is not good for anyone's health (there are cohort studies linking increased consumption of either/both to increased mortality risk -- contrast this to modest use of coffee or alcohol which decrease mortality risk). Beyond that I have no idea, other than there are some small studies suggesting that artificially sweetened beverages may actually increase mortality risk compared to sugar sweetened beverages (eg. PMID- 17275898)

Also, there has been a considerable 10 year decline in the consumption of sweetened soft drinks in general, both regular and diet. However, there has been no corresponding decline in sugar intake so, yes, it does seem that people will get their sugar one way or another.
   67. theboyqueen Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4651511)
Why is a pissing match between some local TV guys news?


This remains the salient post, however.
   68. SoSH U at work Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4651521)
I must say, I feel I know less about the subject of Diet Soda vs. Regular Pop* than when the thread started.

Meth is still good for me, right?




* This terminology confusion owing to my Northeastern roots, Midwestern adulthood.

   69. Morty Causa Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:26 PM (#4651522)
Meth's fine. Just eat a banana afterwards.
   70. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4651524)
I remember reading about this last year and I know the study was done at Yale, a colleague was involved in doing some of the analysis. That's all I got for ya.

Edit: AHA!


OK, I read that and have absolutely no idea what it is saying.
   71. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4651528)
Also, there has been a considerable 10 year decline in the consumption of sweetened soft drinks in general, both regular and diet. However, there has been no corresponding decline in sugar intake so, yes, it does seem that people will get their sugar one way or another.

Nor a corresponding decline in obesity for that matter.
   72. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4651535)
Maybe I didn't make my opinion clear. All things being equal, I think replacing diet pop with regular pop. If a person replaces those calories elsewhere, it's not going to help. I think you have to tell people that.

The evidence is never going to be great either way because of the fact that there won't be funding to get a clear answer.

I will need to look into it better.
   73. Rants Mulliniks Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:39 PM (#4651538)
To me, diet soda is one of the most vile flavors on Earth.


Me too, which is unfortunate, because stevia tastes just like aspartame.

The fact that there are still practicing GPs telling their patients that drinking diet pop is just fine is pretty hard to comprehend. I hope you're not telling them to load up on margarine instead of butter too.
   74. Morty Causa Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:54 PM (#4651546)
Some of the sugarfree soft drinks are better: Diet Barq's Root Beer, Diet Dr. Pepper, Diet 7up (or Diet Sprite), to name a few. They're more tart and don't have a heavy aftertaste. Granted, though, the biggies like Diet Coke and Pepsi are terrible. In fact, I find it strange that there should be such a difference in taste between the Diet Coke and the "classic" Coke.
   75. madvillain Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:56 PM (#4651547)
The fact that there are still practicing GPs telling their patients that drinking diet pop is just fine is pretty hard to comprehend. I hope you're not telling them to load up on margarine instead of butter too.


Science moves slowly into the mainstream, and doctors are certainly no exception. The post in this thread about "calories in calories out" is symptomatic of that attitude. Of course it's true that diet soda doesn't contribute to calories in but there is increasing research that shows it affects the body's metabolism in other detrimental ways.

And yea, the stuff is just gross, I don't know why anyone would drink it.
   76. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: February 04, 2014 at 03:58 PM (#4651551)
Well, I'm training to be a psychiatrist so it's not something I've said it very often.
I'm going to do some research though to look into it better.

   77. Mike A Posted: February 04, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4651567)
Count me in as another Diet Coke addict. I'm 6 months clean now (heh), but at peak it was probably 12 cans a day. At least. Diet Coke was my heroin (too soon?).

Never had any issues with sweet cravings or losing weight while on Diet Coke, though. The only real change I've found since I've been off is sleeping better without all that caffeine coursing through the veins. Used to be I'd sleep maybe 5-6 hours and rely on caffeine to push me through the day. Now I'm getting about an hour or so extra sleep.

My doctor was very, very happy when I told her I quit.
   78. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 04:21 PM (#4651568)
I probably average one liter of diet cola per work day (a 20-oz bottle during the day and a glass or can with dinner). On weekends it's usually less. I'm not worried about the calories or the caffeine, although I think the diet soda is probably marginally better for my teeth. And diabetes runs in my family, so I am probably well served to avoid excessive amounts of sugar--although I lack any of the other diabetes risk factors.

It's hard for me to imagine drinking 6 or 12 cans of anything during the day - I would probably be running back and forth to the men's room all day.
   79. The Good Face Posted: February 04, 2014 at 04:23 PM (#4651570)
Science moves slowly into the mainstream, and doctors are certainly no exception. The post in this thread about "calories in calories out" is symptomatic of that attitude. Of course it's true that diet soda doesn't contribute to calories in but there is increasing research that shows it affects the body's metabolism in other detrimental ways.


Except "calories in, calories out" is generally correct. It's an oversimplification that does not take every factor into account, but it's a reliable and useful rule of thumb. That said, diet soda IS gross and should be avoided by pretty much everyone.
   80. Ok, Griffey's Dunn (Nothing Iffey About Griffey) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 04:36 PM (#4651575)
I hope you're not telling them to load up on margarine instead of butter too.


This is when I first learned that butter was better than margarine.
   81. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: February 04, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4651577)
Except "calories in, calories out" is generally correct. It's an oversimplification that does not take every factor into account, but it's a reliable and useful rule of thumb.


Yes, but how do you determine calories out?
   82. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 04:46 PM (#4651586)
I believe the scientific method involves lighting your poop on fire and measuring the intensity of the flames.
   83. The Good Face Posted: February 04, 2014 at 04:53 PM (#4651591)
I believe the scientific method involves lighting your poop on fire and measuring the intensity of the flames.


People measure?!? I suppose it's possible I've been skipping a step all these years...
   84. dr. scott Posted: February 04, 2014 at 04:56 PM (#4651594)
More calories out in your urine... that is what you need to light on fire.

And if you can do it mid stream, its more impressive
   85. madvillain Posted: February 04, 2014 at 04:59 PM (#4651597)

Except "calories in, calories out" is generally correct. It's an oversimplification that does not take every factor into account, but it's a reliable and useful rule of thumb. That said, diet soda IS gross and should be avoided by pretty much everyone.


Calories in calories out is the only thing that matters in weight loss, nobody can dispute that (except the crazy HAES) people, but how the body responds to cravings, feelings of fullness and hunger, etc is certainly responsible for a lot of calories in, especially in obese people. I'm chronically 20lbs or so overweight and mostly it's because I drink way too much beer. On nights I don't drink beer, I eat a shitload of carbs. One time I did atkins and damn after a month my late night carb cravings were completely gone. That's the sort of longer term dieting that works and in general modifying the types of calories in helps with cravings, which in turn helps with weight.
   86. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 04:59 PM (#4651598)
More calories out in your urine... that is what you need to light on fire.


I think that would only work for Hulk Hogan and Barry Bonds.
   87. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 05:03 PM (#4651602)
Yes, but how do you determine calories out?

Not sure if this is a serious question, but I guess you can track calories in and find a level at which your weight remains constant. In any case, determining calories out seems less important than knowing how to increase them. Obviously, more physical activity and exercise. Converting fat into muscle will increase the number of calories you burn while at rest. There are other things you can do on the margin, but outside of smoking or taking hard drugs those are your best options.
   88. Morty Causa Posted: February 04, 2014 at 05:04 PM (#4651603)
   89. BDC Posted: February 04, 2014 at 05:18 PM (#4651613)
I must say I do drink diet soda – one can or two per day – and it probably isn't as good for me as seltzer (I drink a lot of that, too), but it's probably better for me than regular Coke or Bloody Marys. We live in a fallen world and I need a vice or two to get by.
   90. AuntBea Posted: February 04, 2014 at 05:19 PM (#4651616)
According to this website, sleeping with (presumably in the bed next to) someone has an equivalent radioactivity dose of 1/2 of a banana. So in order to avoid cancer, avoid people as well. To be sure, better off yourself now before it's too late.
   91. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: February 04, 2014 at 05:23 PM (#4651620)
In another recent thread I compared "calories in, calories out" to "score more runs than the other team." Absolutely true, but not really all that helpful IMO. What's the best kind of exercise? Intense cardio? Walking? Yoga? Weight training? How does body type affect exercise and eating habits? What types of calories? What % of fat, protein, and carbs?

I just don't think enough research has been done in this area.
   92. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: February 04, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4651630)
I am in the habit of smoking about 2-3 cigars a week on the weekends. It's a crummy habit I realize but I find that sitting with a cigar and a drink for 2-3 hours on a Friday and Saturday night is incredibly relaxing and I feel better than I would if I was hitting the bar scene or pigging out at Chili's.

Very few people are capable of being 100% good to themselves. Like BCC said in 89, at some point you just pick your vices and deal with the problems they cause.
   93. Manny Coon Posted: February 04, 2014 at 05:55 PM (#4651655)
In fact, I find it strange that there should be such a difference in taste between the Diet Coke and the "classic" Coke.


Diet Coke has become it's own thing, there are variants that taste more like regular Coke, Coke Zero and Diet Coke w/Splenda, but they are less popular than normal Diet Coke because Diet Coke already has such a huge established following. Changing Diet Coke's flavor rather that creating variations like they have would have been New Coke all over again.
   94. madvillain Posted: February 04, 2014 at 06:05 PM (#4651664)
In another recent thread I compared "calories in, calories out" to "score more runs than the other team." Absolutely true, but not really all that helpful IMO. What's the best kind of exercise? Intense cardio? Walking? Yoga? Weight training? How does body type affect exercise and eating habits? What types of calories? What % of fat, protein, and carbs?


I like this, good comparison. There are some real nuts out there though that cannot be convinced they will lose weight if they burn more calories than they consume. It's a whole corner of the Internet I made the mistake of stumbling upon.
   95. The Good Face Posted: February 04, 2014 at 06:07 PM (#4651669)
Calories in calories out is the only thing that matters in weight loss, nobody can dispute that (except the crazy HAES) people, but how the body responds to cravings, feelings of fullness and hunger, etc is certainly responsible for a lot of calories in, especially in obese people.


Yeah, that's very true. It's why losing weight is conceptually really easy (fewer calories in, more calories out!) but much, much harder in practice (I just ran 5 miles and I'm starving! Hello there giant bowl of pasta and box of cookies!).

In another recent thread I compared "calories in, calories out" to "score more runs than the other team." Absolutely true, but not really all that helpful IMO. What's the best kind of exercise? Intense cardio? Walking? Yoga? Weight training? How does body type affect exercise and eating habits? What types of calories? What % of fat, protein, and carbs?


Weight training is my preference since it has the most potential to improve your metabolism, but again, burning calories is burning calories in a general sense. The bigger issue is finding a form of exercise that you enjoy, or at least don't hate and that doesn't leave you ravenous with hunger. In terms of what to eat, that's more a health/nutrition issue than a pure weight lose issue. You could lose weight eating nothing but Snickers bars if you were capable of managing your caloric intake/output. Of course, that's a pretty huge "if".
   96. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 04, 2014 at 06:34 PM (#4651689)
Weight training is my preference since it has the most potential to improve your metabolism, but again, burning calories is burning calories in a general sense. The bigger issue is finding a form of exercise that you enjoy, or at least don't hate and that doesn't leave you ravenous with hunger. In terms of what to eat, that's more a health/nutrition issue than a pure weight lose issue. You could lose weight eating nothing but Snickers bars if you were capable of managing your caloric intake/output. Of course, that's a pretty huge "if".

I probably take things to an extreme, but my exercise regime consists of weight training with a pretty wide variety of cardio mixed in -- running, cycling, swimming, jumping rope, etc. Whatever I feel like that day and depending on what I'm training for. I think the variety helps me avoid injury and keeps things interesting, although running is the easiest and most flexible activity in terms of time/weather/equipment needed. But yes, the most important thing is to find something that you enjoy and that is relatively convenient so that you will do it often. And the more you do it the better you'll get at it and the more you will enjoy it.

I also don't see anything wrong with running 5 miles and then eating a big bowl of pasta. It's a lot better than doing neither. No, you won't lose weight as quickly but if you do it enough you will increase your metabolism. More importantly, you'll feel better and be healthier, which is a better goal than losing weight anyway. I'm not going to win any races or be on the cover of any magazines, but it's still an incredible feeling to have confidence in your body, what it can accomplish and where it can take you.
   97. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: February 04, 2014 at 06:35 PM (#4651691)
In another recent thread I compared "calories in, calories out" to "score more runs than the other team." Absolutely true, but not really all that helpful IMO. What's the best kind of exercise? Intense cardio? Walking? Yoga? Weight training? How does body type affect exercise and eating habits? What types of calories? What % of fat, protein, and carbs?


I don't know if you are just thinking out loud or asking for advice but if it's the latter I'll give a personal endorsement of Weight Watchers. I've lost 65 pounds and it's been incredibly easy. The biggest thing has been a retraining of how I eat.
   98. madvillain Posted: February 04, 2014 at 06:54 PM (#4651709)

I don't know if you are just thinking out loud or asking for advice but if it's the latter I'll give a personal endorsement of Weight Watchers. I've lost 65 pounds and it's been incredibly easy. The biggest thing has been a retraining of how I eat.


A big thing is just eat more slowly and focus on enjoying each bite. Sounds ridiculous but it certainly helps with the "full feeling".

It's an amazing time to be a middle class American as you literally have access (well at least in most mid to large cities) to hundreds of different types of food at any given time and variety of food is another factor in weight loss. Everyone "gets sick of" stuff, even fatty delicious stuff like fried chicken and burgers. But if you can then go get a pizza... If you want to lose weight, don't ever move to an outer borough!
   99. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: February 04, 2014 at 07:05 PM (#4651716)
I don't know if you are just thinking out loud or asking for advice but if it's the latter I'll give a personal endorsement of Weight Watchers. I've lost 65 pounds and it's been incredibly easy. The biggest thing has been a retraining of how I eat.

Mostly just thinking out loud. I've really tried to avoid sugar, bread, and pasta over the last few years (with occasional splurges), and I think it's helped.
   100. theboyqueen Posted: February 04, 2014 at 07:31 PM (#4651726)
To some extent I think Starbucks is replacing soda, and most of what people buy at Starbucks are basically hot, very large, caffeinated milkshakes.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDowney: Let Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame already
(31 - 9:41am, Aug 22)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(4818 - 9:40am, Aug 22)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(61 - 9:38am, Aug 22)
Last: Conor

NewsblogCubs place struggling Edwin Jackson on the disabled list
(52 - 9:37am, Aug 22)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogA Look Inside Baseball's Ever-Evolving Stimulant Culture | Bleacher Report
(2 - 9:33am, Aug 22)
Last: hokieneer

NewsblogMegdal: Humble shortstop Marty Marion should be in Hall contention
(56 - 9:30am, Aug 22)
Last: Ron J2

Newsblog10 episodes of ‘The Simpsons’ every sports fan needs to watch
(29 - 9:28am, Aug 22)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogFG: Brian McCann Probably Couldn’t Be Given Away For Free
(30 - 9:26am, Aug 22)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-22-2014
(4 - 9:04am, Aug 22)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(288 - 8:29am, Aug 22)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(491 - 8:28am, Aug 22)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

NewsblogESPN’s Jayson Stark: Phillies shake-up coming, Ruben Amaro not safe
(3 - 7:56am, Aug 22)
Last: Jeltzandini

NewsblogPhillies have decisions to make heading into '15
(9 - 7:41am, Aug 22)
Last: steagles

NewsblogCurt Schilling Reveals He Was Diagnosed With Mouth Cancer in February, Believes Chewing Tobacco Was the Cause
(41 - 6:33am, Aug 22)
Last: MuttsIdolCochrane

NewsblogLA Times: Angels' Garrett Richards Suffers Knee Injury in Win Over Red Sox
(46 - 5:16am, Aug 22)
Last: A New Leaf (Black Hawk Reign of Terror)

Page rendered in 0.5298 seconds
52 querie(s) executed