Sugary drinks tied to kidney stone risk
NEW YORK — Adults who drink at least one sugar-sweetened drink a day are slightly more likely to develop kidney stones than people who rarely imbibe them, according to a new study.
While the recommendation for kidney stone prevention has been to drink a lot of fluids, the study suggests that it's not just the amount of fluid but the type of drink that matters.
Dr. Gary Curhan, the senior author of the study, said patients often ask for dietary advice to help prevent kidney stones.
While the recommendation has been to drink plenty of fluids, Curhan said, patients often ask, “What should I drink? There's a lot of lore out there.”
To see whether the type of beverage might matter, Curhan, of the Channing Division of Network Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital, and his colleagues collected data from three surveys of nearly 200,000 people.
The questionnaires surveyed participants every two to four years and asked about diet, lifestyle and health, including how much they drank certain beverages and whether they developed kidney stones.
None of the people in the study had kidney stones at the start.
Researchers found that 159 out of every 100,000 people who drank a sugar-sweetened non-cola beverage, such as clear soda, less than once a week developed kidney stones, compared with 306 out of every 100,000 who drank soda daily.
After accounting for other factors, that translated to a 33 percent greater chance of developing kidney stones.
Frequent punch drinkers had an 18 percent higher chance of developing kidney stones.
For every 100,000 people who drank punch at least every day, 226 developed kidney stones, compared with 158 out of every 100,000 participants who had punch less than once a week.
Curhan said that while the numbers of people developing kidney stones in each group are not enormously different, the increased risk spread across an entire population is quite big.
“Sodas are so commonly used that even though the absolute rate doesn't look that different, if there's a huge number of people consuming it, then the magnitude on the public health can be quite substantial,” Curhan told Reuters Health.
Other drinks, such as coffee, tea, wine, beer and orange juice, were linked to a lower risk of developing kidney stones.
For instance, 205 out of every 100,000 people who rarely drank coffee developed kidney stones, compared with 137 out of every 100,000 people who drank it daily.
Just 96 out of every 100,000 people who drank red wine daily developed kidney stones, while 174 out of every 100,000 people who drank red wine less than once a week developed kidney stones.
Curhan's study, published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, follows others showing a link between stones and fructose, non-dairy calcium, vitamin C supplements and other factors.
The new study does not prove cause-and-effect between certain drinks and kidney stones, but it's possible that sugar could be involved, Curhan said, because it might play a role in how the body handles calcium.
Another possibility is that sugary drinks might be contributing to obesity, and obesity is tied to a higher kidney stone risk, said Dr. Elaine Worcester, a professor at the University of Chicago, who was not part of the study.
Despite the lack of proof of a cause-effect relationship, Worcester said, “these kinds of studies are the best we have to give advice to our patients.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Social Security’s $300M IT project doesn’t work
- Man told transit police the Boston Marathon bomber ‘was my best friend’
- Fire season expected to accelerate
- Massachusetts teen held in teacher’s slaying accused assaulting detention center worker
- Biden decries voting restrictions in NAACP address
- Mont. senator’s thesis appears to have been plagarized
- Obamacare enrollees strain Medicaid in Oregon
- Mountaineer workers fear smoking ban will harm ‘livelihood’
- Can Georgia GOP ‘outsider’ Perdue best Democrats’ Nunn?
- Head of troubled CDC anthrax lab quits
- Ariz. inmate’s execution apparently botched