Diet Coke vs Water??-- 0 cals vs 0 cals

Options
1…5681011…23

Replies

  • Sparkles_Chaos_n_Curves
    Sparkles_Chaos_n_Curves Posts: 149 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    Would it not be prudent to use a little common sense here? First off anything in an unreasonable quantity is unhealthy. Things that can be considered healthy. (i.e. Water in too large of concentration flushes out the needed electrolytes in the body to get your heart to fire properly {potassium, and sodium}). A calorie is a calorie, but may not be created equal. For example. there would be calories in wood pulp of a maple tree if consumed, since it's organic material. However, the cellulose in it would not be as desirable for use to the body. It may also have a detrimental impact if it contains, natural chemicals the body is adverse to, or unable to breakdown, verses let's say the caloric value of kale. Also, an organic caloric plant source, however, the body is capable of breaking the chemical compounds down, and use them as a viable source of energy.

    This is the same as saying 1 pound of fat is not equal to one pound of muscle. One pound is one pound, however, the volume of space it takes up is greater, since their molecular density is different.

  • htimpaired
    htimpaired Posts: 1,404 Member
    Options
    rsngmn wrote: »
    All the references are listed at the bottom of the page, you may enjoy diet drinks and treats with aspartame etc. but don't say that it's healthy or it has no effect on our health, it's more dangerous than sugar...

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/01/artificial-sweeteners-raise-diabetes-risk.aspx

    The minute you linked Mercola you lost credibility. He's hardly a reputable source.
  • rsngmn
    rsngmn Posts: 57 Member
    Options
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    rsngmn wrote: »
    All the references are listed at the bottom of the page, you may enjoy diet drinks and treats with aspartame etc. but don't say that it's healthy or it has no effect on our health, it's more dangerous than sugar...

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/01/artificial-sweeteners-raise-diabetes-risk.aspx

    You know that mercola is on of the biggest spreaders of woo around right?

    Have you checked the references, don't you think 'Yale journal of biology and medicine' is a trustworthy source?
  • peleroja
    peleroja Posts: 3,979 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    rsngmn wrote: »
    All the references are listed at the bottom of the page, you may enjoy diet drinks and treats with aspartame etc. but don't say that it's healthy or it has no effect on our health, it's more dangerous than sugar...

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/01/artificial-sweeteners-raise-diabetes-risk.aspx

    Mercola is an AIDS denialist who thinks sunscreen gives you cancer. I don't think I'm going to stop drinking soda on the advice of someone who also thinks microwaves are dangerous.

    LOL, I need to save this phrase exactly for the next time that name comes up.
  • MySummerDream
    MySummerDream Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    I love diet soda, but sweetener makes me bloat, plus, in large amounts, it's a laxative, so you'd have to drink 2 cups at most or something. Not only that, but several sweeteners (saccharin is the one i remember most clearly) are linked to increasing your chances of cancer. But then again, everything in moderation.
  • robs_ready
    robs_ready Posts: 1,488 Member
    Options
    rsngmn wrote: »
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    rsngmn wrote: »
    All the references are listed at the bottom of the page, you may enjoy diet drinks and treats with aspartame etc. but don't say that it's healthy or it has no effect on our health, it's more dangerous than sugar...

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/01/artificial-sweeteners-raise-diabetes-risk.aspx

    You know that mercola is on of the biggest spreaders of woo around right?

    Have you checked the references, don't you think 'Yale journal of biology and medicine' is a trustworthy source?

    The source you're referencing shows there is a correlation between artifical sweetener and sugar cravings.

    This has nothing to do with whether sweetener is bad for you.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Options
    I've never had a laxative effect with aspartame and I am very sensitive as I have Crohn's. Sugar alcohols, especially sorbitol, on the other hand are a guaranteed evening spent in the bathroom ;)
  • MTDDS18
    MTDDS18 Posts: 62 Member
    Options
    tincanonastring wrote: »
    MTDDS18 wrote: »
    tincanonastring wrote: »
    Asher_Ethan wrote: »
    Yes. However, if I go a long time without diet soda, and then I drink it, I retain water like crazy. I don't know why.

    Sodium? 40mg per can. Doesn't seem like a lot, but maybe enough to throw off your particular levels?

    ETA: OP - as long as your calorie count doesn't increase, it won't matter from a weight loss perspective. I'm sure your dentist would probably have a good argument for water instead of diet soda.

    Meh, we were taught my first year in dental school to BEG patients to switch from juice/sports drinks/ regular soda to diet pop. There's no sugar in it, so no carbohydrates for the bacteria to turn into acid. Sure it's a little acidic, but coupled with good saliva flow and fluoride toothpaste, the acid challenge of a diet soda is really minimal.

    Yeah, that makes sense, but water is still better than the diet soda, right?

    Oh for sure, but I've never told a patient to give up their diet pop habit. But water, especially if from a fluoridated source, is the gold standard for beverages
  • Lyrica7
    Lyrica7 Posts: 88 Member
    Options
    Aspartame triggers migraines attacks for me sucralose does not-everyone is different in what their body can tolerate.
  • MySummerDream
    MySummerDream Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    ^ Sucralose is one of my favorite sweeteners. The fact that it can withstand the heat of freshly brewed coffee/tea whereas saccharin becomes mildly bitter.... love it.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    Sparkles_Chaos_n_Curves wrote: »
    Would it not be prudent to use a little common sense here? First off anything in an unreasonable quantity is unhealthy. Things that can be considered healthy. (i.e. Water in too large of concentration flushes out the needed electrolytes in the body to get your heart to fire properly {potassium, and sodium}). A calorie is a calorie, but may not be created equal. For example. there would be calories in wood pulp of a maple tree if consumed, since it's organic material. However, the cellulose in it would not be as desirable for use to the body. It may also have a detrimental impact if it contains, natural chemicals the body is adverse to, or unable to breakdown, verses let's say the caloric value of kale. Also, an organic caloric plant source, however, the body is capable of breaking the chemical compounds down, and use them as a viable source of energy.

    This is the same as saying 1 pound of fat is not equal to one pound of muscle. One pound is one pound, however, the volume of space it takes up is greater, since their molecular density is different.

    Your body simply cannot properly digest cellulose (fiber). It has calories but you don't absorb them. That is not the fault of the calories though, but of your body. You could fill your gas tank with olive oil (9 kcal per gram) and it probably wouldn't do a damn thing because the car isn't made to work on oil.
    The calories are all the same, the nutrients that give you them differ. Your body will use some of the fat you eat for hormone stuff and other things, and some of the protein you eat for tissue repair and growth.

    But do not think that that's all your body does with them, you're very much capable of using either of them for just getting energy out of it. That's why people are able to be healthy at vastly different nutrient ratios, be that high fat, high protein, high carb or evenly distributed. The pathways your body takes to transform them may be different but in the end, it can make usable energy out of any of the food you eat as long as you're able to digest it.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    rsngmn wrote: »
    All the references are listed at the bottom of the page, you may enjoy diet drinks and treats with aspartame etc. but don't say that it's healthy or it has no effect on our health, it's more dangerous than sugar...

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/01/artificial-sweeteners-raise-diabetes-risk.aspx

    Mercola is an AIDS denialist who thinks sunscreen gives you cancer. I don't think I'm going to stop drinking soda on the advice of someone who also thinks microwaves are dangerous.

    This^^
  • las148
    las148 Posts: 30 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    The book Sweeteners and Sugar Alternatives in Food Technology looks at all the different artificial sweeteners. (I was able to locate the book online through my university's library - so many people won't be able to access it for free.) The book is available as an ebook through Google Books and also is on Amazon.

    I specifically read the section about aspartame because I've also been lead to believe that it is bad for one's health; that it causes brain tumors, epilipsy, etc. To sum up what was said, the authors concluded that aspartame can be an effective tool in weight-loss, when used as an alternative to sugar (p. 125). It also has no adverse effects on one's dental health, because aspartame "is not fermented by tooth plaque bacteria" (p. 124). Additionally, it is okay to for diabetics to use (p. 125). Finally, the authors discuss aspartame's safety, noting that it has been undergone "extensive tests" due to its widespread use, saying that aspartame is fine (p. 126). Specifically, the authors state, "there was no credible evidence that aspartame is a carcinogen and that the weight of evidence suggests that it is safe at current use levels as a non-nutritive sweetener" (p. 126).

    0470659688.jpg
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    rsngmn wrote: »
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    rsngmn wrote: »
    All the references are listed at the bottom of the page, you may enjoy diet drinks and treats with aspartame etc. but don't say that it's healthy or it has no effect on our health, it's more dangerous than sugar...

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/01/artificial-sweeteners-raise-diabetes-risk.aspx

    You know that mercola is on of the biggest spreaders of woo around right?

    Have you checked the references, don't you think 'Yale journal of biology and medicine' is a trustworthy source?

    I can't speak to these specific references, but when I have researched Mercola "references" in the past, they often said things that were much different than what he was using them to support. The man is a liar, he makes his living off feeding and creating fears. I wouldn't trust a single claim of his, even if it was referenced. Even if the source is valid, it probably doesn't say what he claims it does.
  • rsngmn
    rsngmn Posts: 57 Member
    Options
    robs_ready wrote: »
    rsngmn wrote: »
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    rsngmn wrote: »
    All the references are listed at the bottom of the page, you may enjoy diet drinks and treats with aspartame etc. but don't say that it's healthy or it has no effect on our health, it's more dangerous than sugar...

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/01/artificial-sweeteners-raise-diabetes-risk.aspx

    You know that mercola is on of the biggest spreaders of woo around right?

    Have you checked the references, don't you think 'Yale journal of biology and medicine' is a trustworthy source?

    The source you're referencing shows there is a correlation between artifical sweetener and sugar cravings.

    This has nothing to do with whether sweetener is bad for you.

    it says that 'artificial sweeteners increase your appetite as sugar does, but they re not satisfactory as natural sweeteners'.
  • bruhaha007
    bruhaha007 Posts: 333 Member
    Options
    One word, chemicals Who needs them really?
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    bruhaha007 wrote: »
    One word, chemicals Who needs them really?

    I do. I require chemicals. I use them constantly. They are responsible for my very existence.
  • TheBeachgod
    TheBeachgod Posts: 825 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    bruhaha007 wrote: »
    One word, chemicals Who needs them really?

    One word: Everybody

  • enterdanger
    enterdanger Posts: 2,447 Member
    Options
    Hey, guys...No one is getting out of here alive. If you want to be truly horrified, read up on endocrine disruptors that are common in our personal care products. That's scary stuff, but I'm not gonna stop using deodorant and shampoo either...just saying.
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    Options
    rsngmn wrote: »
    All the references are listed at the bottom of the page, you may enjoy diet drinks and treats with aspartame etc. but don't say that it's healthy or it has no effect on our health, it's more dangerous than sugar...

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/01/artificial-sweeteners-raise-diabetes-risk.aspx

    khnr25bpdpvj.png

Categories