Cokes.
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Help with what? If you mean weight loss and you are talking sugar sweetened coki, then yes, it will help as long as you don't replace the coke calories with something else.
But I have become pretty convinced that soda in general, and especially cola, is unhealthy to consume on a regular basis. I have relatives with various medical problems that have been advised to avoid soda. I don't know if it actually causes any medical problems, but it sure does seem to make a variety of thing worse.
And yet I have reverse my heart issues while drinking diet coke. LOL,
0 -
hoppertaylor wrote: »hoppertaylor wrote: »Do realize that all of the people telling you to switch to diet sodas, though they have no calories, are not including that they contain aspartame. Aspartame is an artificial flavor that replaces the taste of the soda, and has been shown in studies to create cancer in different parts of the body.
I used to be addicted to Dr. Pepper and Coke, but after my first kidney stone I then realized that it isn't worth it. I wholly recommend that you cut them out entirely and focus on water only.
No studies have shown that you could possibly drink enough diet soda to give yourself any cancer whatsoever. Lies are NOT COOL.
I drink like two Cokes a year and just had a kidney stone. I drink 60 oz of water per day minimum.
Man I wish people realized the huge amount of harm they do by posting such total untruths
Sorry you're so unfortunate to have such awful luck/genetics to get them that bad. Maybe take into account your other life habits?
A simple "actually you're wrong and here's why" would have sufficed over a "lying isn't cool and you're hurting people". I was voicing personal experience, believe it or not. Think before you insult or degrade.
You deliberately tried to make OP believe that she will get cancer and kidney stones from drinking soda. Are those things true or not true? If they're not true, and you said them, then you were lying to someone about their health and that is not cool. And calling you out on it is the responsible thing to do. Sorrynotsorry.
There seems to be a lot anger here. Why? Please calm down before you have a coronary.
Different people react to substances in diferent ways, artificial sweetners have been linked to cancer and other medical conditions. High acidic drinks can cause stomach ulcers. If you only have coke occassionaly then the risks are negligable.
Likewise the smoker who has a few cigerettes a day 'may' be less at risk than one who smokes a lot a day.
But there are other factors that need taking into consideration, like is the condition hereditary, lifestyle and health.
0 -
*sigh* Please read the whole thread before you respond. As was said before, the bolded above is NOT true. artificial sweeteners have NOT been linked to cancers in humans, ever.hoppertaylor wrote: »hoppertaylor wrote: »Do realize that all of the people telling you to switch to diet sodas, though they have no calories, are not including that they contain aspartame. Aspartame is an artificial flavor that replaces the taste of the soda, and has been shown in studies to create cancer in different parts of the body.
I used to be addicted to Dr. Pepper and Coke, but after my first kidney stone I then realized that it isn't worth it. I wholly recommend that you cut them out entirely and focus on water only.
No studies have shown that you could possibly drink enough diet soda to give yourself any cancer whatsoever. Lies are NOT COOL.
I drink like two Cokes a year and just had a kidney stone. I drink 60 oz of water per day minimum.
Man I wish people realized the huge amount of harm they do by posting such total untruths
Sorry you're so unfortunate to have such awful luck/genetics to get them that bad. Maybe take into account your other life habits?
A simple "actually you're wrong and here's why" would have sufficed over a "lying isn't cool and you're hurting people". I was voicing personal experience, believe it or not. Think before you insult or degrade.
You deliberately tried to make OP believe that she will get cancer and kidney stones from drinking soda. Are those things true or not true? If they're not true, and you said them, then you were lying to someone about their health and that is not cool. And calling you out on it is the responsible thing to do. Sorrynotsorry.
There seems to be a lot anger here. Why? Please calm down before you have a coronary.
Different people react to substances in diferent ways, artificial sweetners have been linked to cancer and other medical conditions. High acidic drinks can cause stomach ulcers. If you only have coke occassionaly then the risks are negligable.
Likewise the smoker who has a few cigerettes a day 'may' be less at risk than one who smokes a lot a day.
But there are other factors that need taking into consideration, like is the condition hereditary, lifestyle and health.
0 -
Another wonderful use for coke is that it gets rid of oil stains on your driveway , just eats it away
Vinegar would probably work too, but I wouldn't be guzzling litres of that everyday either.. 0 -
I'm in favor of cutting out most soda, diet or not. That said, I've got a mean Diet Dr Pepper habit and I tend to sip on the same drink all day. The sipping (instead of just drinking the darn thing) plus my crappy enamel that I can't do anything about equals cavities.
Maybe try swapping for black or artificially sweetened coffee or unsweetened tea. But then there's staining to consider...0 -
[quote="emodavis;33350293"]I'm in favor of cutting out most soda, diet or not. That said, I've got a mean Diet Dr Pepper habit and I tend to sip on the same drink all day. The sipping (instead of just drinking the darn thing) plus my crappy enamel that I can't do anything about equals cavities.
Maybe try swapping for black or artificially sweetened coffee or unsweetened tea. But then there's staining to consider...[/quote]
Why? You give no valid reason for this statement.
0 -
This post from the aspartame thread is relevant.Aaron_K123 wrote: »Very interesting and well explained (albeit in a uber-scientific way)
So then just out of curiosity, what is it - scientifically speaking - that was found in the studies some rely on to "prove" aspartame is harmful. Is it a super-duper concentration (un-scientifically speaking) of one of the specific compounds? That's my suspicion, but I'd be interested in an explanation from someone far smarter than myself just what it is the anti-aspartame folks are hanging their hat on (the ones who actually sort of know what they're talking about; not the ones whose totality of 'informed' opinion comes from forwarded emails and facebook posts)
I honestly don't think people who scare-monger against aspartame have any legitimate evidence of toxicity of any level.
As stated we know the metabolic breakdown products of aspartame. They are aspartate and phenylalanine, amino acids that are non-toxic unless you have PKU and methanol. Methanol gets further converted to formaldehyde which does have toxicity which is why methanol is toxic. But with all things toxic there is a dose at which they are toxic and below which they are not.
The toxic dose of methanol far far FAR exceeds the amount you get in a soda or in fruit juices or in wine.
To answer your question as best I can let me put it this way. If you were to drink diet soda, one right after the other non-stop until you died the substance that killed you would be water. Water is therefore the most "toxic" ingredient in diet soda.
That's basically what I suspected.
I'm going all-idiot now and do exactly what I ridiculed others for doing...I "heard" there were studies that showed that super-high doses of aspartame caused cancer in mice. Never been too worried about it to dig up the research or anything...I just suspected that it was ultra high doses of one of the component chemicals that would require chugging gallons of the stuff. But was just curious for a scientific explanation if it was different than my supposition.
I don't drink soda - but only because I don't particularly care for it (except in small doses mixed with some whiskey or rum or something). I do tend to search out products (yogurts, etc) that have sugar vs. aspartame because I simply like the taste better.
Appreciate the research and explanation!
The study you are refering to are two studies conducted by the same lab Soffritti et al 2006 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/ and Soffritti et al 2007 located here for the full article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/
The studies were conducted in rats, specifically Sprague-Dawley rats. This is a rather odd and questionable choice of model organism. Why it is questionable is that really Sprague-Dawley rats are the model organism of choice for studying cancer because they are outbred rats who are known to develop spontaneous tumors 45% of the time. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf
Basically you pick Sprague Dawly rats if you want some rats that are going to develop tumors no matter what. The fact that this groups Sprague-Dawley rats developed tumors is therefore no suprise at all and doesn't mean a thing about what affect aspartame had on them.
So I have to ask why, if these researchers wanted to test if a particular compound was carcinogenic, would they EVER choose to test it in Sprague-Dawley rats...rats known for forming spontaneous tumors due to their genetics. Toxicology testing is routinely done in BALB/c or C57B/6 mice so the use of Sprague-Dawley rats is odd.
Also I have to point out that if aspartame made 40% of those who ingest it break out all over the place in tumors I think we would have noticed by now.
It is one flawed study amongst hundreds of studies that demonstrate no carcinogenic or toxic effects of aspartame and yet it is the one study cited over and over by articles talking about how "toxic" aspartame is. Frankly I doubt those people have ever read the study or know anything about Sprague-Dawley rats.
Basically, rats that get a shitton of tumours just by being looked at funny, getting fed up to 2g/kg of weight in aspartame daily. That would be 140 grams of aspartame every day for a human. For reference, 8 oz of diet coke got 125 mg, 1 gram is 1000 mg. (http://static.diabetesselfmanagement.com/pdfs/DSM0310_012.pdf). Misread. Only 100 mg/kg of weight, which would be 7 grams for an average person, so still 56 times 8 oz of diet coke.0 -
tRenee1996 wrote: »Does it help to cut out ALL cokes & only water?
I still drink Pepsi almost every day. Of course it HELPS to cut out those drinks, but it is not required if you just stay below deficit overall.
0 -
In my opinion, the biggest problem with sugar sweetened beverages (ALL of them) is that you can easily and efficiently consume very high volumes of calories in extremely short time with none of the nutritional satiety "braking mechanisms" in place (protein, fat, fiber) there to tell you "I'm full" at any point when you're consuming it.
Therefore, it becomes easy for people to be sipping soda (or juice, for that matter) throughout the day and be packing on an extra 1000-2000 calories a week without even realizing it.
I agree. I am a little mad at Costco for selling the Mexican Coke that has sugar cane in it. I could guzzle a case in a day, easily.
They have that at our employee store. The cashier looked at me funny when I said "I've always wanted to try Mexican coke!"0 -
hoppertaylor wrote: »hoppertaylor wrote: »Do realize that all of the people telling you to switch to diet sodas, though they have no calories, are not including that they contain aspartame. Aspartame is an artificial flavor that replaces the taste of the soda, and has been shown in studies to create cancer in different parts of the body.
I used to be addicted to Dr. Pepper and Coke, but after my first kidney stone I then realized that it isn't worth it. I wholly recommend that you cut them out entirely and focus on water only.
No studies have shown that you could possibly drink enough diet soda to give yourself any cancer whatsoever. Lies are NOT COOL.
I drink like two Cokes a year and just had a kidney stone. I drink 60 oz of water per day minimum.
Man I wish people realized the huge amount of harm they do by posting such total untruths
Sorry you're so unfortunate to have such awful luck/genetics to get them that bad. Maybe take into account your other life habits?
A simple "actually you're wrong and here's why" would have sufficed over a "lying isn't cool and you're hurting people". I was voicing personal experience, believe it or not. Think before you insult or degrade.
You deliberately tried to make OP believe that she will get cancer and kidney stones from drinking soda. Are those things true or not true? If they're not true, and you said them, then you were lying to someone about their health and that is not cool. And calling you out on it is the responsible thing to do. Sorrynotsorry.
There seems to be a lot anger here. Why? Please calm down before you have a coronary.
Different people react to substances in diferent ways, artificial sweetners have been linked to cancer and other medical conditions. High acidic drinks can cause stomach ulcers. If you only have coke occassionaly then the risks are negligable.
Likewise the smoker who has a few cigerettes a day 'may' be less at risk than one who smokes a lot a day.
But there are other factors that need taking into consideration, like is the condition hereditary, lifestyle and health.
Linked is a very loose word. Being a night-shift working is linked to cancer (2A level), as has working as a carpenter (lesser 2B level), or working as a textile manufacturer (2B), or using talc based powders (2B), all according to IARC. IARC, however, does not designate aspartame as carcinogenic.0 -
Challenge accepted.stevencloser wrote: »This post from the aspartame thread is relevant.Aaron_K123 wrote: »Very interesting and well explained (albeit in a uber-scientific way)
So then just out of curiosity, what is it - scientifically speaking - that was found in the studies some rely on to "prove" aspartame is harmful. Is it a super-duper concentration (un-scientifically speaking) of one of the specific compounds? That's my suspicion, but I'd be interested in an explanation from someone far smarter than myself just what it is the anti-aspartame folks are hanging their hat on (the ones who actually sort of know what they're talking about; not the ones whose totality of 'informed' opinion comes from forwarded emails and facebook posts)
I honestly don't think people who scare-monger against aspartame have any legitimate evidence of toxicity of any level.
As stated we know the metabolic breakdown products of aspartame. They are aspartate and phenylalanine, amino acids that are non-toxic unless you have PKU and methanol. Methanol gets further converted to formaldehyde which does have toxicity which is why methanol is toxic. But with all things toxic there is a dose at which they are toxic and below which they are not.
The toxic dose of methanol far far FAR exceeds the amount you get in a soda or in fruit juices or in wine.
To answer your question as best I can let me put it this way. If you were to drink diet soda, one right after the other non-stop until you died the substance that killed you would be water. Water is therefore the most "toxic" ingredient in diet soda.
That's basically what I suspected.
I'm going all-idiot now and do exactly what I ridiculed others for doing...I "heard" there were studies that showed that super-high doses of aspartame caused cancer in mice. Never been too worried about it to dig up the research or anything...I just suspected that it was ultra high doses of one of the component chemicals that would require chugging gallons of the stuff. But was just curious for a scientific explanation if it was different than my supposition.
I don't drink soda - but only because I don't particularly care for it (except in small doses mixed with some whiskey or rum or something). I do tend to search out products (yogurts, etc) that have sugar vs. aspartame because I simply like the taste better.
Appreciate the research and explanation!
The study you are refering to are two studies conducted by the same lab Soffritti et al 2006 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/ and Soffritti et al 2007 located here for the full article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/
The studies were conducted in rats, specifically Sprague-Dawley rats. This is a rather odd and questionable choice of model organism. Why it is questionable is that really Sprague-Dawley rats are the model organism of choice for studying cancer because they are outbred rats who are known to develop spontaneous tumors 45% of the time. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf
Basically you pick Sprague Dawly rats if you want some rats that are going to develop tumors no matter what. The fact that this groups Sprague-Dawley rats developed tumors is therefore no suprise at all and doesn't mean a thing about what affect aspartame had on them.
So I have to ask why, if these researchers wanted to test if a particular compound was carcinogenic, would they EVER choose to test it in Sprague-Dawley rats...rats known for forming spontaneous tumors due to their genetics. Toxicology testing is routinely done in BALB/c or C57B/6 mice so the use of Sprague-Dawley rats is odd.
Also I have to point out that if aspartame made 40% of those who ingest it break out all over the place in tumors I think we would have noticed by now.
It is one flawed study amongst hundreds of studies that demonstrate no carcinogenic or toxic effects of aspartame and yet it is the one study cited over and over by articles talking about how "toxic" aspartame is. Frankly I doubt those people have ever read the study or know anything about Sprague-Dawley rats.
Basically, rats that get a shitton of tumours just by being looked at funny, getting fed up to 2g/kg of weight in aspartame daily. That would be 140 grams of aspartame every day for a human. For reference, 8 oz of diet coke got 125 mg, 1 gram is 1000 mg. (http://static.diabetesselfmanagement.com/pdfs/DSM0310_012.pdf). Misread. Only 100 mg/kg of weight, which would be 7 grams for an average person, so still 56 times 8 oz of diet coke.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions