Is giving up diet soda really worth it?

jonnythan

The poster said that there is equivalent evidence for poor health outcomes for diet soda that there are for smoking and lead paint. This is absolutely, 100%, completely false. I can't stress that enough. It's absolutely, absolutely false.

You must know something that every reputable medical, fitness and health organization doesn’t.

Congrats - the way that you vigorously advocate eating fast food and drinking diet pop is undoubtedly providing a valuable service to countless MFP users as they continue their journey to better health.

I read this as "I can't back up my ludicrous claim that diet soda is proven bad just as strongly as smoking and consuming lead have been proven bad, so I'm just going to point at the guy calling me out on it and say he's an idiot."

Just sayin.

I like the way that the burden of proof is on everyone else to provide you with evidence that is readily available from countless reputable sources through a simple internet search. You've been lead to water over and over...just sayin'

Oh wait. I remember you. You were the guy who posted the "pink slime" picture and said that's what McNuggets are made of. When I proved to you that it's not, you said something snarky about unicorns.

You clearly don't have much appreciation for fact or reality. You'll readily believe any "fact" given to you that makes fast food/diet soda/etc "bad" with zero regard to whether it's true or not.

So, carry on spreading lies and misinformation and laughing at people who call you out on it.

jonnythan

Aspartame has, to my knowledge, not been shown to cause any negative health outcome. There's no reason to give it up if you like it.

I took this to be a positive claim from you that aspartame is safe. Perhaps you did not intend it as such.

I did not intend it as such. It does not say that. It doesn't say "aspartame is definitely safe." It says "aspartame has not been shown to cause any negative health outcome."

Okay. So, you're not claiming it's safe, basically you're just arguing that you can't say its unsafe either. If you are right and neither can be proved, I guess you just have to decide whether it is more significant to you that it isn't proven safe, or that it isn't proven unsafe.

You can't "prove something safe." Even using that phrase shows a lack of understanding of how science fundamentally works.

There's been a lot of research on aspartame. A lot. None of it has given us any reason to think that it's bad for your health.

ClareWantsProgress

I gave up all soda (though I only drink diet) on two different occasions for over a month each, and noticed absolutely zero difference in my health/weight/sleep, so I am back to having one diet soda over ice, sipped through a straw, each day at work. I despise coffee so it's my only real caffeine "fix" so to speak.

I think everyone's different. I drink plenty of water and/or tea during the day. If I were drinking a 12 pack of soda a day . . . then I'd consider changing, but since my Diet Dr Pepper and Diet Coke have not led me to a life of ill health and ruin, I think I'll stick with them. I love the taste.

mazdauk

It's an interesting thing I'm noticing....

A lot of people demonize diet soda because of aspartame, though no one seems to have much of a problem with Crystal Light. And you never hear much about sucralose. Coke Zero has sucralose instead of aspartame but it's still part of the "diet soda = evil" group.

A lot of people demonize diet soda because of caffeine, but no one seems to have a problem with coffee.

A lot of people demonize diet soda because of the carbonation, but no one seems to have a problem with seltzer.

^^^^THIS x 100!

Leaving the aspartame to one side (please, unless you have a particular condition which means you cannot metabolise it, just don't worry) ALL carbonated drinks have negative effects on teeth because of the corrosive power of CO2. Yes ALL carbonated drinks, even water.

I wouldn't drink diet drinks all day, any more than I drink tea all day, or beer all day (mmmm....beer.....). I have a diet drink with my lunch and diet tonic in my gin simply because I resent wasting the calories from "fat" sodas when I could use them for more important things like chocolate or wine. But the point is, these are products legally available for sale, not even banned for children (although the energy drinks are not recommended because of the caffeine). This is because extensive research has failed to prove them unsafe. But that doesn't make for good headlines.

Everything in moderation. There have been people die from drinking too much water, but that doesn't make water unsafe.:noway:

Bry_Fitness70

The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a positive claim.

You want to drop into a thread and tell everyone that there's scientific research showing that diet soda is as bad as cigarettes and lead poisoning? Then show us the scientific research.

You can't show us that research, so you just point and laugh at anyone who calls you out on the nonsense.

I did not say that diet soda was as dangerous as cigarettes and lead paint (that we know of), I analogized the futility of denying harmful substances exist against the weight of evidence to the contrary.

Review the evidence presented by a Harvard Medical School, the University of Minnesota, the University of Texas Health Science Center, University of Sheffield, University of Michigan, etc., on the proven harmful effects of diet soda, including kidney damage, metabolism issues, obesity, cell damage, rotting teeth, heart disease, and reproductive issues, etc..

If you still aren't convinced, I have to conclude that you just enjoy being a contrarian and taking the unpopular side of issues in order to engage in arguing. There is another word for that, trolling, and I don’t plan on investing any more time debating someone that is in pursuit of back-and-forth arguing rather than pursuing the truth.

jonnythan

proven harmful effects of diet soda, including kidney damage, metabolism issues, obesity, cell damage, rotting teeth, heart disease, and reproductive issues, etc..

Please, link me to the studies that show aspartame causes kidney damage, metabolism issues, obesity, cell damage, rotting teeth, heart disease, and reproductive issues, etc.

Yes, I'm dead serious.

rachseby

The poster said that there is equivalent evidence for poor health outcomes for diet soda that there are for smoking and lead paint. This is absolutely, 100%, completely false. I can't stress that enough. It's absolutely, absolutely false.

You must know something that every reputable medical, fitness and health organization doesn’t.

Congrats - the way that you vigorously advocate eating fast food and drinking diet pop is undoubtedly providing a valuable service to countless MFP users as they continue their journey to better health.

Thank you!

rachseby

Aspartame has, to my knowledge, not been shown to cause any negative health outcome. There's no reason to give it up if you like it.

I took this to be a positive claim from you that aspartame is safe. Perhaps you did not intend it as such.

I did not intend it as such. It does not say that. It doesn't say "aspartame is definitely safe." It says "aspartame has not been shown to cause any negative health outcome."

Okay. So, you're not claiming it's safe, basically you're just arguing that you can't say its unsafe either. If you are right and neither can be proved, I guess you just have to decide whether it is more significant to you that it isn't proven safe, or that it isn't proven unsafe.

You can't "prove something safe." Even using that phrase shows a lack of understanding of how science fundamentally works.

There's been a lot of research on aspartame. A lot. None of it has given us any reason to think that it's bad for your health.

NONE of the research has given us ANY reason to think that it's bad for your health? That's bold. So you've read every single study available?

MsEndomorph

It's an interesting thing I'm noticing....

A lot of people demonize diet soda because of aspartame, though no one seems to have much of a problem with Crystal Light. And you never hear much about sucralose. Coke Zero has sucralose instead of aspartame but it's still part of the "diet soda = evil" group.

A lot of people demonize diet soda because of caffeine, but no one seems to have a problem with coffee.

A lot of people demonize diet soda because of the carbonation, but no one seems to have a problem with seltzer.

I have a problem (using that term loosely) with coffee, crystal light, seltzer water, AND diet/non-diet soda. My main problem with soda in general is the effect on on bones and teeth; my problem with crystal light and diet soda is the chemical nature of the sweeters. And caffeine in general isn't great for the cardiovascular system.

But I'm a member of the "everything in moderation" club. I have a couple cups of coffee a week and maybe 2 diet cokes a month when we're out to eat. The rest of my liquid intake is completely water. I plan out cutting soda out completely, but it's not too easy...because I still like it.

highervibes

Too expensive to buy and consume regularly but I'll order a diet coke at a restaurant or drive thru.

jonnythan

Aspartame has, to my knowledge, not been shown to cause any negative health outcome. There's no reason to give it up if you like it.

I took this to be a positive claim from you that aspartame is safe. Perhaps you did not intend it as such.

I did not intend it as such. It does not say that. It doesn't say "aspartame is definitely safe." It says "aspartame has not been shown to cause any negative health outcome."

Okay. So, you're not claiming it's safe, basically you're just arguing that you can't say its unsafe either. If you are right and neither can be proved, I guess you just have to decide whether it is more significant to you that it isn't proven safe, or that it isn't proven unsafe.

You can't "prove something safe." Even using that phrase shows a lack of understanding of how science fundamentally works.

There's been a lot of research on aspartame. A lot. None of it has given us any reason to think that it's bad for your health.

NONE of the research has given us ANY reason to think that it's bad for your health? That's bold. So you've read every single study available?

I've read a lot of them. If you have any that I haven't read, that you feel gives us a reason to think diet soda causes something or other, then post it here.

ChristyYerka

I have drank Diet Coke since I was 13 years old and could walk to the store with my friends and buy it on my own. My family only drank regular Pespi products. I have collected all things Coke ever since! I have cut out all Diet Coke and carbonated drinks completely since right before starting MFP. I know all the 'bad' things they say about it... and should have been more concerned a long time ago! I only allow my daughter to have root beer or Sprite every once in a while...if no water is available(at parties and such). My reason for the switch... I read that people have less bloating and water retention without it. I am not saying that is a FACT... but for me it was worth a try! I will say I have seen and felt a difference. That may also be because I have increased my water consumption 10 fold! Either way - I don't intend on going back! I do agree...I can't just have a little... If I allowed myself to just taste it... I would go right back to it! During both pregnancies I cut it out completely because of the aspertame and caffiene...thought once I picked it up again I would drink in moderation...no...I would finish a 2 liter in a day solo!

Bry_Fitness70

proven harmful effects of diet soda, including kidney damage, metabolism issues, obesity, cell damage, rotting teeth, heart disease, and reproductive issues, etc..

Please, link me to the studies that show aspartame causes kidney damage, metabolism issues, obesity, cell damage, rotting teeth, heart disease, and reproductive issues, etc.

Yes, I'm dead serious.

http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy-eating-tips/diet-soda-bad-you

Each screen references a study by a health organization or university. This was just the first thing i found by dropping "is diet soda bad" into a search engine.

rachseby

Aspartame has, to my knowledge, not been shown to cause any negative health outcome. There's no reason to give it up if you like it.

I took this to be a positive claim from you that aspartame is safe. Perhaps you did not intend it as such.

I did not intend it as such. It does not say that. It doesn't say "aspartame is definitely safe." It says "aspartame has not been shown to cause any negative health outcome."

Okay. So, you're not claiming it's safe, basically you're just arguing that you can't say its unsafe either. If you are right and neither can be proved, I guess you just have to decide whether it is more significant to you that it isn't proven safe, or that it isn't proven unsafe.

You can't "prove something safe." Even using that phrase shows a lack of understanding of how science fundamentally works.

There's been a lot of research on aspartame. A lot. None of it has given us any reason to think that it's bad for your health.

NONE of the research has given us ANY reason to think that it's bad for your health? That's bold. So you've read every single study available?

I've read a lot of them. If you have any that I haven't read, that you feel gives us a reason to think diet soda causes something or other, then post it here.

I have. And I have posted them. I have read research supporting both sides of the argument. Regardless of whether you agree with, or are even willing to consider, the research that I have presented, you cannot say that no research exists that suggests that aspartame might not be good for a person's health.

rachseby

Soda consumption and the risk of stroke in men and women.
Bernstein AM, de Koning L, Flint AJ, Rexrode KM, Willett WC.
Source
Wellness Institute of Cleveland Clinic, Lyndhurst, OH 44124, USA. bernsta2@ccf.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Consumption of sugar-sweetened soda has been associated with an increased risk of cardiometabolic disease. The relation with cerebrovascular disease has not yet been closely examined.
OBJECTIVE:
Our objective was to examine patterns of soda consumption and substitution of alternative beverages for soda in relation to stroke risk.
DESIGN:
The Nurses' Health Study, a prospective cohort study of 84,085 women followed for 28 y (1980-2008), and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, a prospective cohort study of 43,371 men followed for 22 y (1986-2008), provided data on soda consumption and incident stroke.
RESULTS:
We documented 1416 strokes in men during 841,770 person-years of follow-up and 2938 strokes in women during 2,188,230 person-years of follow-up. The pooled RR of total stroke for ≥ 1 serving of sugar-sweetened soda/d, compared with none, was 1.16 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.34). The pooled RR of total stroke for ≥ 1 serving of low-calorie soda/d, compared with none, was 1.16 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.28). Compared with 1 serving of sugar-sweetened soda/d, 1 serving of decaffeinated coffee/d was associated with a 10% (95% CI: 1%, 19%) lower risk of stroke and 1 serving of caffeinated coffee/d with a 9% (95% CI: 0%, 17%) lower risk. Similar estimated reductions in risk were seen for substitution of caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee for low-calorie soda.
CONCLUSIONS:
Greater consumption of sugar-sweetened and low-calorie sodas was associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke. This risk may be reduced by substituting alternative beverages for soda.

jonnythan

proven harmful effects of diet soda, including kidney damage, metabolism issues, obesity, cell damage, rotting teeth, heart disease, and reproductive issues, etc..

Please, link me to the studies that show aspartame causes kidney damage, metabolism issues, obesity, cell damage, rotting teeth, heart disease, and reproductive issues, etc.

Yes, I'm dead serious.

http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy-eating-tips/diet-soda-bad-you

Each screen references a study by a health organization or university. This was just the first thing i found by dropping "is diet soda bad" into a search engine.

I browsed through a few of them, and none of them gave links or titles for any actual research articles. Hard to examine the article's claims without any actual references to the original research.

Link to actual research, not some random health website that doesn't even give references. Have you ever read scientific research before?

If you want to convince anyone who is scientifically literate, you need to be able to produce something a little better than "here, I did a google search for diet soda bad."

jonnythan

Soda consumption and the risk of stroke in men and women.
Bernstein AM, de Koning L, Flint AJ, Rexrode KM, Willett WC.
Source
Wellness Institute of Cleveland Clinic, Lyndhurst, OH 44124, USA. bernsta2@ccf.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Consumption of sugar-sweetened soda has been associated with an increased risk of cardiometabolic disease. The relation with cerebrovascular disease has not yet been closely examined.
OBJECTIVE:
Our objective was to examine patterns of soda consumption and substitution of alternative beverages for soda in relation to stroke risk.
DESIGN:
The Nurses' Health Study, a prospective cohort study of 84,085 women followed for 28 y (1980-2008), and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, a prospective cohort study of 43,371 men followed for 22 y (1986-2008), provided data on soda consumption and incident stroke.
RESULTS:
We documented 1416 strokes in men during 841,770 person-years of follow-up and 2938 strokes in women during 2,188,230 person-years of follow-up. The pooled RR of total stroke for ≥ 1 serving of sugar-sweetened soda/d, compared with none, was 1.16 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.34). The pooled RR of total stroke for ≥ 1 serving of low-calorie soda/d, compared with none, was 1.16 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.28). Compared with 1 serving of sugar-sweetened soda/d, 1 serving of decaffeinated coffee/d was associated with a 10% (95% CI: 1%, 19%) lower risk of stroke and 1 serving of caffeinated coffee/d with a 9% (95% CI: 0%, 17%) lower risk. Similar estimated reductions in risk were seen for substitution of caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee for low-calorie soda.
CONCLUSIONS:
Greater consumption of sugar-sweetened and low-calorie sodas was associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke. This risk may be reduced by substituting alternative beverages for soda.

This is a cohort study. It's purely correlative. There are so many potential confounding factors here that zero conclusions can be drawn about causation. There's not even a biological mechanism posited.

Look up Hill's Criteria.

Bry_Fitness70

I browsed through a few of them, and none of them gave links or titles for any actual research articles. Hard to examine the article's claims without any actual references to the original research.

Link to actual research, not some random health website that doesn't even give references. Have you ever read scientific research before?

You have the university and the year of the study from the website, the information is there for you when you decide it is time to educate yourself.

jonnythan

I browsed through a few of them, and none of them gave links or titles for any actual research articles. Hard to examine the article's claims without any actual references to the original research.

Link to actual research, not some random health website that doesn't even give references. Have you ever read scientific research before?

You have the university and the year of the study from the website, the information is there for you when you decide it is time to educate yourself.

Time for me to educate myself, which is something you haven't done.

People who are scientifically literate and intellectually honest don't just take some fitness site's 1-paragraph blurb's word for it. They actually read the research to see if it supports the blurb's claim. More often than not, it doesn't.

If you haven't read the research and the best you can do is "here I googled 'diet soda bad' for you and found this health site slideshow with no references," then you're not going to convince anyone who actually knows how science works and knows what a journal article looks like.

rachseby is at least posting abstracts. They're not supporting her claims all that well, but at least she's doing more than posting blog entries.

MsEndomorph

Recent research:

Eur J Nutr. 2013 Apr 11. [Epub ahead of print]
Sugar-sweetened beverage and diet soda consumption and the 7-year risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus in middle-aged Japanese men.
Sakurai M, Nakamura K, Miura K, Takamura T, Yo****a K, Nagasawa SY, Morikawa Y, Ishizaki M, Kido T, Naruse Y, Suwazono Y, Sasaki S, Nakagawa H.
Source
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Kanazawa Medical University, 1-1 Daigaku, Uchinada, Ishikawa, 920-0293, Japan, m-sakura@kanazawa-med.ac.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE:
This cohort study investigated the association between sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) and diet soda consumption and the incidence of type 2 diabetes in Japanese men.
METHODS:
The participants were 2,037 employees of a factory in Japan. We measured consumption of SSB and diet soda using a self-administered diet history questionnaire. The incidence of diabetes was determined in annual medical examinations over a 7-year period. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for diabetes were estimated after adjusting for age, body mass index, family history, and dietary and other lifestyle factors.
RESULTS:
During the study, 170 participants developed diabetes. The crude incidence rates (/1,000 person-years) across participants who were rare/never SSB consumers, <1 serving/week, ≥1 serving/week and <1 serving/day, and ≥1 serving/day were 15.5, 12.7, 14.9, and 17.4, respectively. The multivariate-adjusted HR compared to rare/never SSB consumers was 1.35 (95 % CI 0.80-2.27) for participants who consumed ≥1 serving/day SSB. Diet soda consumption was significantly associated with the incident risk of diabetes (P for trend = 0.013), and multivariate-adjusted HRs compared to rare/never diet soda consumers were 1.05 (0.62-1.78) and 1.70 (1.13-2.55), respectively, for participants who consumed <1 serving/week and ≥1 serving/week.
CONCLUSIONS:
Consumption of diet soda was significantly associated with an increased risk for diabetes in Japanese men. Diet soda is not always effective at preventing type 2 diabetes even though it is a zero-calorie drink.

It's known that diet soda consumption is correlated with diabetes incidence.

The question is whether the diet soda causes diabetes.

What do you think? What confounding variables could be present here? What factors could explain this link?

I don't think the issue is whether or not diet soda causes diabetes - I don't know that I've ever heard a medical professional actually claim that. I've heard of some very small studies that found increased a1c levels in diabetics who drank diet soda, but the other group was obviously not drinking soda at all so it doesn't really account for variables present in ALL soda.

Some thoughts: It's been theorized that the extra sweetness of aspartame (moreso than sugar) conditions people to crave sweeter things, much like salt use. So I drink Diet Coke and now I want MORE Diet Coke and cookies and candy, which would raise my glucose levels.

Aspartame seems to make people hungrier in general, which can contribute to obesity which is obviously a major factor in Type 2 diabetics. The same with sodium and the increased stomach acid from "soda stomach."

For a while everyone thought just the sweet taste of aspartame could trick your body into releasing insulin which would increase fat storage, but that actually seems to be false now, so there ya go.