CerealCrunch posted:

Bloody Marys

Antioch posted:

Look at you weirdos making Caesars wrong.

canyoneer posted:

Who buys or drinks V8 anyway? I needed some for a soup base, and a 6 pack (smallest quantity available!) was $7. A giant quart can of the store brand stuff was like $1.50.

For some reason they still always offer it on planes

Antioch posted:

Look at you weirdos making Caesars wrong.

twistedmentat posted:

This is why I stick to whiskey and rum based drinks. All that sounds gross.

Thing is V8 is advertised as a healthy alternative to pop and juice and milk.

CommonShore posted:

1/10 the sugar of juice, 10x the sodium.

quote:

This week a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in the American Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure. In May European researchers publishing in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the less sodium that study subjects excreted in their urine—an excellent measure of prior consumption—the greater their risk was of dying from heart disease. These findings call into question the common wisdom that excess salt is bad for you, but the evidence linking salt to heart disease has always been tenuous.

...

Scientific tools have become much more precise since then, but the correlation between salt intake and poor health has remained tenuous. Intersalt, a large study published in 1988, compared sodium intake with blood pressure in subjects from 52 international research centers and found no relationship between sodium intake and the prevalence of hypertension. In fact, the population that ate the most salt, about 14 grams a day, had a lower median blood pressure than the population that ate the least, about 7.2 grams a day. In 2004 the Cochrane Collaboration, an international, independent, not-for-profit health care research organization funded in part by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, published a review of 11 salt-reduction trials. Over the long-term, low-salt diets, compared to normal diets, decreased systolic blood pressure (the top number in the blood pressure ratio) in healthy people by 1.1 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure (the bottom number) by 0.6 mmHg. That is like going from 120/80 to 119/79. The review concluded that "intensive interventions, unsuited to primary care or population prevention programs, provide only minimal reductions in blood pressure during long-term trials." A 2003 Cochrane review of 57 shorter-term trials similarly concluded that "there is little evidence for long-term benefit from reducing salt intake."

Phanatic posted:

nothing wrong with sodium

Zaphod42 posted:

Wow, where do you live? Canada?

Slugnoid posted:

Bryan convinced one of my friends to (attempt to) quit. so there's that..

Karma Monkey posted:

That stuff has been around forever and I'm still amazed that it ever existed, let alone still exists.

Wanamingo posted:

cptn_dr posted:

Why is that a thing?

WebDog posted:

Australian cigarete law packing requirements. Basically no branding and slathered with morbid examples of how you will die. The tobacco companies are having a complete fit over this.

cptn_dr posted:

Why is that a thing?

The Lone Badger posted:

They actually sued the government over it. Restricting free trade, trademark issues etc.

C.M. Kruger posted:

IIRC Jack Daniels similarly tried to market a premixed "Jack Cola" that was pretty dire.

C.M. Kruger posted:

Time spent mixing beer, V8 and clam juice together is time spent not being drunk.

IIRC Jack Daniels similarly tried to market a premixed "Jack Cola" that was pretty dire.

C.M. Kruger posted:

Time spent mixing beer, V8 and clam juice together is time spent not being drunk.

Sentient Data posted:

I know I may come off as an alcoholic

Sentient Data posted:

I know I may come off as an alcoholic, but even the 6% sends crazy low to me. I'm assuming Jack in Oz is still the usual 40%.

WebDog posted:

Of course every kid in the 90's no doubt loved these gloriously un-PC lollies:


And that's on the low-end of candy cigarettes, others would come with authentic branding. Some had powered sugar in them that you could blow out as "smoke". They slowly got pulled as studies were coming out to show they made smoking look completely harmless

Nowdays they're still sold,with look-alike-branding, but most are called "candy sticks".

Wanamingo posted:

muscles like this? posted:

When I was a kid (in the 80s) I remember two different kinds of candy cigarettes. There were ones that were just candy sticks that were kind of colored like cigarettes and ones that were gum in paper wrappers made up to look like cigarettes. They were the ones with the sugar dust in them that you could blow out.

Fo3 posted:

It all started back in the 70s with a company called UDL, that sold generic scotch, whiskey, gin, rum vodka etc premixed in a can, so many name brands do it here as well to compete for that market share. They call it "ready to drink" and being pop flavoured, are heavily heavily taxed so kids don't drink them.
E: the fact that these exist, used to be cheap and high in alcohol, is probably why malt liquor doesn't exist here.

muscles like this? posted:

When I was a kid (in the 80s) I remember two different kinds of candy cigarettes. There were ones that were just candy sticks that were kind of colored like cigarettes and ones that were gum in paper wrappers made up to look like cigarettes. They were the ones with the sugar dust in them that you could blow out.

cptn_dr posted:

Why is that a thing?

Doc Morbid posted:

In KISS's heyday, Ace Frehley and Peter Criss were the guys who did all the drugs and threw the TVs out of hotel room windows and stuff like that. Paul and especially Gene Simmons (who loves to tell everyone how he's never tried drugs, alcohol or tobacco and is therefore a better person than you) stayed away from that kind of thing and just hosed a bunch of groupies like responsible adults.

Wanamingo posted:

Sentient Data posted:

I know I may come off as an alcoholic, but even the 6% sends crazy low to me. I'm assuming Jack in Oz is still the usual 40% abv, when people order single-ingredient mixed drinks are they really expecting a 7:1 ratio of coke/etc? That's less than a single shot per cup. Sure that's a sensible range for beer, but whenever I think of liquor being involved I figure it's because the effect is supposed to be a bit larger

Hirayuki posted:

About a year or so ago, I discovered that my favorite drink is the gin & tonic. I recently tried a bottled Beefeater G&T in Japan that was by far the best G&T I'd ever had. I need to either step up my game or find something similar here. I can't even taste-test the bottled one for comparison as I try to adjust my own homemade cocktails to match.

CommonShore posted:

What is the actual deal with the cups, then? What did they add/remove?

CommonShore posted:

What is the actual deal with the cups, then? What did they add/remove?

canyoneer posted:

Who buys or drinks V8 anyway? I needed some for a soup base, and a 6 pack (smallest quantity available!) was $7. A giant quart can of the store brand stuff was like $1.50.

For some reason they still always offer it on planes

WebDog posted:

Pre-mixed cans and bottles of Jack and Jim (the mainstream burbon brands here) are pretty much the rage here in Australia - much to the amusement of visiting Americans who apparently have never seen such a thing. I've gathered it's a bit different in America as a litre of the stuff is really cheap (1L is around $50 here vs something like $22 for 1.75L over there) and you simply bring soft drink to mix.

Jack Daniel's "dumb move" in Australia was to drop their premix alcohol content from 6% to 5% which saw backlash as loyal buyers moved to other brands that kept up the alcohol content. Jacks got the hint and you now can get a "double jacks" version which has 6.9%. Which still costs $25 for 4 375ml cans.