An endless series of hobgoblins?

[Earthworm_Jim]

MSN apparently has latched on to the latest non-existent threat in an article entitled Drink Too Many Colas, and Your Bones May Pay the Price

The article is rather confusing…in a critical paragraph I think they mistakenly used the word “caffeinated” instead of “carbonated”, but maybe I’m wrong:

Heaney and colleagues at Omaha, Nebraska’s Creighton University, evaluated carbonated beverage consumption in a group of 30 women who routinely drank from two to seven, 12-oz cans of soda daily. They evaluated carbonated beverages – with and without sugar and with and without caffeine – water, and milk and found small but statistically significant increases the amount of calcium lost in the urine of people who consumed two or more caffeinated beverages each day. However, the calcium lost from the caffeine beverages is unlikely to lead to bone loss, Heaney says, because the body appears to be able to compensate for it.

In this study, a common component of colas and other soft drinks called phosphoric acid did not seem to affect the amount of calcium lost in the urine. Previous research had linked it with bone loss.

“I think this research shows that we can’t condemn carbonated beverages,” Heaney says.

Anyway, the point of the debate: The article says there’s no direct link from cola-consumption to bone loss. But it says so in a very ominous “BUT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN!!!” kind of way. Are we such nutcases that this constitutes news? What does this type of article say about our collective state of mind? I mean, so what, right? So what if you drink soda, you seem to have an increase of calcium in the urine? The study goes on to say that the body doesn’t have a problem and it doesn’t contribute to bone loss. Are we, collectively, such hypochondriacs that we have to follow every imaginary threat?

And what does this say about MSNs ability to write a clear and concise article?

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Hee. For reasons which escape me at the moment, I’ve got MSN set as my home page, and every morning I look forward to their latest “non-issue” blurbs. It’s kinda fun, actually.

And I think it’s important to realize that “MSN’s ability to write a clear and concise article” doesn’t enter into it, because they don’t write the articles, they just link to other people’s articles. This particular one, for example, was written for WebMD by one Salynn Boyles. When you click on the link you gave, Bubba, if you look fast, you’ll see the WebMD URL go flashing past, as MSN goes and gets it for you.

http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/1756.53655

Salynn Boyles

WebMD freelance reporter Salynn Boyles has been writing about medical issues for more than a decade. As a newspaper reporter in Atlanta, she won awards for political coverage and spot news writing. She worked for the medical newsletter publisher Henderson Publications for 11 years and held the titles of senior writer and senior editor.

So she doesn’t work for MSN, she works for herself, and she wrote this for WebMD.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

But yeah, I agree 100% that it’s an endless series of hobgoblins.

[Podkayne]

I’ve mentioned this before, but I’ll dredge it up again; it’s one of my pet theories. Our health is a precarious thing. Scary stuff like cancer and osteoporosis and whatnot can strike without warning. When gen-u-wine scientifical research links a product with a medical condition, we’re grateful. By something so simple as avoiding that product, we can feel like we’re taking some small measure of control, making ourselves a bit safer.

People lap this stuff up, so obviously the media is happy to provide the information, and it’s worth their while to exaggerate the threat as much as possible to drum up interest.

[Earthworm_Jim]

Oh…I knew that.

my bad.

Now, lets see what that has to say about Beelzebubbas reading comprehension skills…

[Earthworm_Jim]

Heh…the cool simulpost makes it looks like my reply addressed this, so I guess I should clarify:

*Originally posted by Podkayne *
**When gen-u-wine scientifical research links a product with a medical condition, we’re grateful. By something so simple as avoiding that product, we can feel like we’re taking some small measure of control, making ourselves a bit safer.

People lap this stuff up, so obviously the media is happy to provide the information, and it’s worth their while to exaggerate the threat as much as possible to drum up interest. **

On the one hand, I’m absolutely agreeing with you that people go nuts for this sort of thing and, as such, media outlets are happy to provide.

OTOH, I read the article as saying the research did NOT link any conditions with the product…BUT IT COULD HAVE!!! And now, re-reading this article it seems like she was actually saying caffeinated beverages may contribute to extra calcium loss, which seems to be completely glossed over by the whole soda-angle.

All in all, it does not seem like this article was written to say that phosphoric acid does not, in fact, contribute to calcium loss, contradicting previous findings…though that seems to be a significant result of the research.

Again, let’s take a look at those reading-comprehension skills of mine, eh

[xenophon41]

from Podkayne:
When gen-u-wine scientifical research links a product with a medical condition, we’re grateful. By something so simple as avoiding that product, we can feel like we’re taking some small measure of control, making ourselves a bit safer.

While I agree with you here, I think this instance is certainly a case of “another hobgoblin” in the endless series. While the headline slyly implies a direct causative link between soda consumption and bone loss, the article contradicts that implication:

Lead researcher Robert P. Heaney, MD, tells WebMD his team found nothing that specifically pointed to soda causing bone loss. “But somebody who is drinking six cans of cola a day and getting no milk at all is going to be in trouble,” he adds. “It is not because they are drinking the cola. It is because they are not drinking milk.”

The headline might as well have said: “Drink Too Much Water, and Your Bones May Pay the Price”

[erislover]

I think this is the best thread title I’ve ever seen here.

[Podkayne]

Yeah, clearly we have a case here of shoddy, or possibly outright dishonest, journalism, though is giving a misleading title to a link “journalism?”

[Manduck]

*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *
**

Salynn Boyles

WebMD freelance reporter Salynn Boyles has been writing about medical issues for more than a decade. As a newspaper reporter in Atlanta, she won awards for political coverage and spot news writing. She worked for the medical newsletter publisher Henderson Publications for 11 years and held the titles of senior writer and senior editor.

**

It’s a funny coincidence that she writes for medical newsletters, because her name sounds like it must be a medical condition: “So, have those saline boils cleared up yet?”

[elfkin477]

While I too think the article was vague to the point of banality, my nutrition professor (for a class I took in 99’) did tell us that caffeine from coffee blocks calcium absorbsion- so you should never take calcium supliments with a cup of coffee, and leachs calcium from one’s bones…I may be wrong,(I don’t drink either one) but soda only has a fraction of the caffeine of coffee, doesn’t it?

[foolsguinea]

I think you’re misreading the article. Here’s what it said.
A) Researchers thought phosphoric acid was bad for your bones. But this study doesn’t show that.
B) Caffeinated beverages do increase calcium excretion. But the body apparently can compensate, if it has enough calcium intake.
C) If you’re drinking pop instead of something with actual nutrients, you’re in trouble.