OK. I actually did drink almost nothing but coke for >20 years, 1-2 cans per day and maybe no coffee, but a lot of milk, and nothing else. I stayed 375lbs the whole time, and I got diabetes. I also didn't develop heart problems or potassium deficiency, but I don't eat bananas.
Obviously everyone's experience will differ.
I drink no sodas, but these days I at least look for water that's made with no cane sugar, and almost anything is less acidic than coke, so I'm doing 'better', but still not good.

OK. I actually did drink almost nothing but coke for >20 years, 6-12 cans per day and maybe up to 2 cups of coffee with too much sugar, and nothing else. I stayed 165lbs the whole time, and I never got diabetes. I also didn't develop heart problems or potassium deficiency, but I do eat bananas.
Obviously everyone's experience will differ.
I still drink mostly sodas, but these days I at least look for soda that's made with real cane sugar, and almost anything is less acidic than coke, so I'm doing 'better', but still not good.

I did a few months ago, so I lowered my sugar consumption like from drinks. Doctors didn't say I have diabetes. However, they did say I have high blood pressures (family tree members have it and had to take daily tablets) and very low vitamin D (not an outdoor guy; taking pills and trying to go outside for at least 15 minutes per day). I have lots of allergies (itches, leaks, etc.) too.

I want that so bad it's making my diabetes hurt.

Unfortunately...

http://www.joslin.org/info/correcting_internet_myths_about_aspartame.html

The whole "sweet taste tricks your body in to releasing insulin" is complete bunk. A simple glucose tolerance test would show if pancreatic hormone secretion was elevated due to aspartame ingestion...

Oh look!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3522147

A nutritive sweetener, aspartame (L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methylester) was administered orally to normal controls and diabetic patients in order to evaluate effects on blood glucose, lipids and pancreatic hormone secretion. An oral glucose tolerance test was also performed in the same subjects as a control study of aspartame administration. In 7 normal controls and 22 untreated diabetics, a single dose of 500 mg aspartame, equivalent to 100 g glucose in sweetness, induced no increase in blood glucose concentration. Rather, a small but significant decrease in blood glucose was noticed 2 or 3 h after administration. The decrease in blood glucose was found to be smallest in the control and became greater as the diabetes increased in severity. No significant change in blood insulin or glucagon concentration during a 3-h period was observed in either the controls or the diabetics. The second study was designed to determine the effects of 2 weeks' continuous administration of 125 mg aspartame, equal in sweetness to the mean daily consumption of sugar (20-30 g) in Japan, to 9 hospitalized diabetics with steady-state glycemic control. The glucose tolerance showed no significant change after 2 weeks' administration. Fasting, 1 h and 2 h postprandial blood glucose, blood cholesterol, triglyceride and HDL-cholesterol were also unaffected. From these and other published results, aspartame would seem to be a useful alternative nutrient sweetener for patients with diabetes mellitus.

Yes, phosphoric acid isn't great for your teeth, and yes, it's better to drink water, but the majority of the blurb against diet type low calorie sweeteners start with conspiracy theorists and nuts who believe you can cure cancer with herbal teas.

Sorry poster, no upvote for blatant misinformation.

Ironic they got a diabetic to sculpt with sugar. =)

Drunk? high? diabetic? heatstroke?

Looks, at a cursory level---like drunk to me but...
And the part where he's in the work safety vest and it's the middle of the day?

If we take for granted the need for cost cutting, it would be only logical, if not an outright neccessity in a democracy, to leave the details up to the local representatives. Payment of X Euros expected by mm/dd/yy, figure it out yourselves.

Why do it any other way?

Well, you know the three most discussed possibilities as well as I do: shock doctrine, an attempt to force Syriza to commit political suicide, and bureaucratic automatisms.

During the first stages of this facade, I would have put my money square on shock doctrine. The measures are just too damn beneficial to the "there is no society" kind of thinking. It's horseshit, economically, and tremendously damaging, socially.

Replacing Syriza with the Old Guard seems quite appealing, given the behind-the-scenes deals with the nepotistic elite as a means to facilitate a smoother transitition once those pesky commies are out of the picture. The vitriol against Varoufakis is just staggering in this regard. News of the World got nothing compared to what our respectable media has hurled at Varoufakis and Tsipras.

My take on the automatisms on the other hand is rooted in how our politicians and our public has been arguing this entire time. Neoliberalism is the gospel, dissent is heresy. Privatisation is good, cutting wages is good, flexible labour market is good, taxation of wealth is bad, deficit is bad, surplus is good. They drank the kool aid, they are in it hook, line and sinker.

And as a result, the diagnosis is always the same, and so is the treatment. And fuck me for using this ass of a metaphor, given how the language used is the most subtle means of manipulation. "Rescue" the Greeks, "drowning" in debt, "tighten your belt". How about: food only on five days a week, grandma gets to croak on diabetes and your baby boy dies of diphtheria.

Yes, I had a fucked up day. The discussion in parliament about the "Greek problem" was a disgrace and high treason of the humanistic ideas that are supposed to be the foundation of the European Union.

Hold up. Regular brownies have no nuritional value whatsoever. They are, in fact, poison if they contain refined sugar. Sure, they are fun to eat, but they will rot your teeth, give you diabetes and eventually cancer if you get hooked. This is all WITHOUT THE POT.

Shoot, the addition of pot will probably HELP on a nutritional level.

It's official. The entire world is insane.

I love what you said, I'm an alcoholic and it's getting worse as I now have diabetes, insomnia and pancreatitis. It's going to kill me but I can't stop and I don't understand why I need to do it..

Understood, and to be fair, the fact that the Lancet (one of the most esteemed medical publications on the planet) got suckered in really leaves the door open for laypeople who have very little medical knowledge to accept these things hook, line and sinker.

When you compound that with historical mishaps such as thalidomide, agent orange and asbestos, or even the big health push away from red meat/fats to a mainly carb based diet (hullo diabetes!), a fair amount of skepticism is understandable.

I've moderated my criticism of anti-vaxxers considerably over the years because of that. There will always be hardline true believers, but most people are acting out of a combination of fear of big pharma (not unjustified) and side effects for their kids. Watching a family member drowning on their own mucous tends to bring things in to perspective, if a little late... = (

I knew this would happen. Talking to you, too, @oritteropo:

I'm leaving it with just this, because people are attached to their bacon and steaks as tightly as they are tied to religion. Perhaps it's again apples to oranges, but I'm guessing a lot of you are the same folks who rant against religion and wonder why people are so stupid and don't look at logic and science, blah blah blah. This is the perfect time to look in the mirror and see a touch of what you're up against. When you've been indoctrinated with something since you were literally born, you fight against being wrong so hard. So, so hard. Seriously. Take a moment, take a deep breath, and take a little search inside looking at how much of you knows for a fact that eating meat is just fine, and how much of it is cognitive dissonance. How much of it is emotional and how much of it is logical. Look at a video of people going on and on about how Jesus Christ is Lord and another video of people going on and on about how much they love bacon. It's kind of disturbing how zealous bacon-lovers get. Try it. It's fun. It's why I became vegetarian only about 4 or 5 years ago. And I gotta say, getting rid of that cognitive dissonance is very, very relieving and satisfying.

Yes, yes, yes. Loads and loads of vegetarians and vegans are unhealthy. Actually, I would argue that most vegetarians and vegans are wholly less healthy than omnivores since most of them have a high-and-mighty "I'm vegetarians/vegan so I'm automatically healthy" and eat some of the most disgusting, heart-disease-inducing, oily, fatty, un-nutririous, processed shit that's ever been made. Look at some of the fake meat stuff to just have a peek.

No. If you actually watched any of the videos you will see that it's not just being vegan that is important. It's to be a healthy vegan. You know, all that shit you can't ever, ever argue is bad for you. Fruits. Leafy greens. Beans. Lentils. Whole grains, occasionally. But mostly leafy greens and fruit.

And there are loads of studies that control exercise and all sorts of other arguments for "NO NO NO! IT'S NOT MY MEAT! STAY AWAY FROM IT IT'S ANYTHING BUT MY MEAT!". I can think of a specific one that I read/watched about controlling for exercise, and I can find it for you if you'd like, but I'm guessing you aren't really interested. They discovered that very aerobic, exercising, running omnivores were as healthy as lightly walking vegans. He even had a cute graphic for it.

And it's not just this guy, either. Head over to Dr. Fuhrman's website for more of the same. Except Dr. Fuhrman is toting stuff to sell, so that unnerves some people. They claim he's just trying to make a buck. But all the money he makes goes to nutritional research.

The last thing I'll say is this:

I honestly don't give a flying shit about what you eat. I don't really care about the environment at all. I'm not planning on having kids, and I'm sure I'll kick the ol' bucket before antibiotics stop working, water is scarce, the waters rise above NYC, and all the other possible doomsday things that'll probably happen within the next 100 or so years. It's true that I also enjoy not feeling guilty for eating animals who live. It'd make me happy if you stopped eating them because the main thing I believe I'm around for is to minimize suffering in the world. So, that'd be nice if more people didn't eat them.

But if you want to live a nice, long, healthy life where you don't die of a stroke, heart attack, or diabetes by the time you're 65, eat better.

There's a reason why the milk, sugar, meat and pharmaceutical companies pump out study after study about how it's totally fine to eat their shit. They spend so much money on it, it's ridiculous.

Cheers to your health, either way.

This will undoubtedly stir up a flame war, because it touches upon one of the forbidden topics, but what the hell:

Although there is, indeed, not a vaccination for heart diseases, a plant-based diet, across the board, in studies since, like, the 70s have shown that it basically heart-disease proofs you, not to mention diabetes.

Here's a long 53 minute video that goes over the basics, but the entire webpage has a little under 2,000 videos with a bunch of stats, papers, meta-studies, etc.

In a lot of ways, heart disease is very preventable, and even reversible in some cases, if you stop eating so much damn meat.

But, as stated above, "not eating meat" or "don't tell me what I can and cannot eat!" is up there with religion as far as topics that people get super-defensive about.

It's up you, truly, to determine what's more important: health or food deliciousness. And some people, knowingly, choose food deliciousness. And bless them. You make your own choices.

But also bless them for our ridiculous health care costs.