« | »

Uh, Oh – CDC Says Alcohol Has Empty Calories

From the Associated Press:

Booze Calories Nearly Equal Soda’s for US Adults

By MIKE STOBBE | November 15, 2012

NEW YORK – Americans get too many calories from soda. But what about alcohol? It turns out adults get almost as many empty calories from booze as from soft drinks, a government study found.

We wouldn’t call alcohol "empty calories."

Soda and other sweetened drinks — the focus of obesity-fighting public health campaigns — are the source of about 6 percent of the calories adults consume, on average. Alcoholic beverages account for about 5 percent, the new study found.

"We’ve been focusing on sugar-sweetened beverages. This is something new," said Cynthia Ogden, one of the study’s authors. She’s an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which released its findings Thursday.

This is news to them?

The government researchers say the findings deserve attention because, like soda, alcohol contains few nutrients but plenty of calories…

And by "attention" they mean this must be stopped.

In fact, you have to wonder how long will it be before Michelle Obama and Mayor Bloomberg are calling for the return of prohibition? Meanwhile, where are the studies into whether smoking marijuana makes you eat too much?

The study found:

—On any given day, about one-third of men and one-fifth of women consumed calories from beer, wine or liquor.
—Averaged out to all adults, the average guy drinks 150 calories from alcohol each day, or the equivalent of a can of Budweiser.
—The average woman drinks about 50 calories, or roughly half a glass of wine.
—Men drink mostly beer. For women, there was no clear favorite among alcoholic beverages.
—There was no racial or ethnic difference in average calories consumed from alcoholic beverages…

That’s a relief, anyway.

Should New York officials now start cracking down on tall-boy beers and monster margaritas?

There are no plans for that, city health department officials said…

Yet.

Health officials should think about enacting policies to limit alcoholic intake, but New York’s focus on sodas is appropriate, said Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a public health advocacy group…

"The Center for Science in the Public Interest." Two people with a fax machine.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, November 15th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

12 Responses to “Uh, Oh – CDC Says Alcohol Has Empty Calories”

  1. GetBackJack

    1. Duh

    2, Who asked you?

    3. Ms. Ogden, are you familiar with the words busy-body, freedom and buttinski?

  2. AcornsRNutz

    Oh, so your a epidemiologist with the CDC, huh mizz ogden? I bet if you were any good at anything you’d be helping fight contagious diseases in the private sector instead of getting a BS job with an orginization that pretty much had to hire you since it only (supposedly) deals with epidemics. Sheesh, and it shows too.

    Hey libs, easy on this taking care of us for our own good schtick. You are going to end up pushing it too far. Try showing up at my house to find me spitting tobacco around a huge glass of whiskey, salting a massive rare cheeseburger and stroking a loaded winchester. IF you can yell louder than the hank williams blaring over my stereo you can ask me to give up just one. Choose wisely.

  3. captstubby

    Ernest Hemingway in the 1920s,

    made famous for saying

    “Have A Drink “.

    I’ll drink to that.

  4. Right of the People

    I wasn’t positive what the hell a epidemiologist was so I looked it up:

    Epidemiology, literally meaning “the study of what is upon the people”,

    Hell I can tell her what is upon the people, it’s asswipes like her trying to get us to all eat sprouts and other weeds and drink green tea.

    Maybe if Mssssss. Ogden had gotten a real degree in a hard science she could have gotten a private sector job where she could do the world some good.

    Think I’ll go have a couple of shots of Wild Turkey washed down by a Guinness or two.

  5. canary

    Did the CDC mention Obama posting his recipe for Obama beer with sugary honey?

    While not all can use the virtual Obama honey produced from WH bee hives, it still makes for a quote “tasty” beer as Obama promoted on the world internet.

  6. BillK

    So does anyone think Bloomberg has the guts to ban beers over 16 oz.?

  7. Rusty Shackleford

    What’s actually going on here is the perfect example of mental laziness, masquerading as ‘activism’.

    By that I mean that people who are put in positions of authority used to have some level of credibility and functioning brain cells. However, thinking is hard and reasoning even more so to many. The emotions rule the mind rather than the other way around.

    And, it manifests itself in a person who’s in authority, seeking something they can do to establish their track record of ‘accomplishment’. To really face the intricacies of housing problems or the tax code is way too hard. But getting a law passed or simply bringing up things like “alcohol–bad” is puerile and parochial. It has to do with the way children see the world as an event, place or thing and rationalizing the simplest explanation in order to make it fit their meager mental processes.

    In short, it’s pathetic.

    However, as has just been demonstrated, it seems to work on a fair segment of the population who want to be told what to do/think, etc.

    Oddly, I have to side with certain criminals when it comes to some laws. They are far too restrictive and tempt most people to break them.

    But I digress.

    Our current rabble of politicians on the socialist side of things are, as they always have been in history, simpletons masquerading as intellectuals. Because they say or believe a thing, that thing is/must be so. Hate to keep bringing up the obvious but that’s how life works in dictatorships.

    Yesterday captain nobody said he believes global warming to be real and rising faster than ever expected yet, for the past 16 years no one can seem to validate that claim/notion/belief. But D’oh-bama, simply by saying it aloud, expects that he’s the voice of all and that all should agree with him.

    As do all the socialists in power at this time. Something has gone horribly wrong wit the human race and it’s sliding in the direction of evil again. I’m not really crazy about it.

  8. electraglide

    More than a dozen years ago when the smoking ban started as a simple requirement for non-smoking sections in restaurants, I tried to warn my friends that eventually they would be coming for our motorcycles. They all thought I was nuts, even the smokers.

    Over time, the smoking regulations morphed into physically separated sections. Signs. Warnings. Then they required special ventilation systems. About the same time bar owners gave up on spending money on renovations every year, a total ban went into effect. Now you can’t even smoke near the entrance.

    I told my friends to hang onto your bikes, because every argument they just made to ban smoking applies to motorcyclists as well: Motorcycles are dangerous. We all bear the cost of healthcare when a motorcyclist gets hurt. You don’t need a motorcycle. Blah Blah Blah…

    I knew we were not the next target, but I could see a few moves ahead of my friends. Salt. Sugar. They would be coming for the booze before my bike, so we had some time.

    Now what?

    • electraglide

      !!! SATIRE ALERT !!!

      What follows is an official electraglide self-parody:

      More than a dozen years ago when the smoking ban started as a simple requirement for non-smoking sections in restaurants, I tried to warn my friends that eventually they would be coming for Sandra Fluke. They all thought I was nuts, even the smokers.

      Over time, the smoking regulations morphed into physically seperated sections. Signs. Warnings. Then they required special ventilation systems, About the same time bar owners gave up on spending money on renovations every year, a total ban went into effect. Now you can’t even smoke near the entrance.

      I told my friends to hang onto your junk, because every argument they just made to ban smoking applies to sex with Sandra Fluke as well: Sex is dangerous. We all bear the cost of contraception when Sandra Fluke gets pregnant. You don’t need Sandra Fluke. Blah Blah Blah…

      I knew we were not the next target, but I could see a few moves ahead of my friends. Salt. Sugar. They would be coming for the motorcycles before sex, so we had some time.

      Now what?

  9. beautyofreason

    Libs would riot with Bacchanalian frenzy if Bloomberg tried it. Cracking down on alcohol sizes is an offense to freedom, they would say. All of those gay bars in Greenwich village would be up in arms to protest this threat to their hedonism. But these same people are fine with banning large sodas. Because only little people – the fat and uneducated middle and lower classes – would touch an inexpensive, sugary drink. We apparently need the government to help us to make good food choices – unless you are rich. The law will crack down on new fast food places; they will tax high calorie treats; they will pull Gatorade from school vending machines. But they will NEVER attempt a ban on creamy, fried or unhealthy foods at their $30 / plate restaurants. They would consider it an atrocious overstep on their lifestyle choices. Why does the restriction on Walmart in Manhattan matter, when these elegant flakes can shop at Gucci.

    Nannies relish in directing the little people, whose tastes are not as refined as the upper echelons of gilded bureaucrats. you can bet that the martinis, chocolate truffles, and creme brulee will never stop flowing from their houses. And I don’t think the personal chefs will use low fat cheese.

  10. Astravogel

    These people have no conception as to what a calorie is.
    Perhaps they should ask a scientist, or simply research it.

  11. yadayada

    “Center for Science in the Public Interest” is actually none of the above- they are not the center of anything. but at their center is a small black hole for federal grants; they are not “for” real science; nothing they do even resembles science. their “scientific research” consists of gathering info from wikipedia that supports their own theories; and they do absolutely nothing in the interest of the public.
    their track record of accuracy in any of their claims and assumptions is abysmal. but, record of ruining some industries and quality of life is stellar.
    remember coconut oil on movie theater popcorn? replaced by hydrogenated soybean oil, which cspi also claims is the progenitor of heart disease. remember their claim on eggs? butter? pork? all supposed to be horribly lethal, even in moderate doses.
    look at coffee – CSPI says it’s bad for you. then real scientists do actual studies and experiments and find many ingredients are good for you. cspi waits couple years, lets the public memory fade and comes back out and, viola bad for you. another actual scientist scratches his head and does a little combing through previous research papers (actual research) and hey, it’s good for you again. tomorrow?? who knows ?

    and don’t get me started on red wine (I have a hard time stopping ;-)




« Front Page | To Top
« | »