Diet Coke vs Water??-- 0 cals vs 0 cals
Options
Replies
-
robs_ready wrote: »singingflutelady 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'.
I know what it reads, I had the painful experience of reading it.
But you still haven't answered my question, find me a source that addresses aspartame or any other variation of sweetener as bad for you?
Americans are so paranoid about it, that beverage companies are ripping their products off the shelves, and it's absolutely insane.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »
Americans are so paranoid about it, that beverage companies are ripping their products off the shelves, and it's absolutely insane.
+1 Yes, because now Diet Pepsi tastes like crap!
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
You just reiterated, what I said. It isn't the fact that it's a calorie, it is how your body is able to process the chemical or components of the calorie. All viable calories are broken down in the body through digestion to turn then into amino triphosphate (ATP) for your cells to use as energy..... However, it's the ease in which the body can breakdown the components of the "calorie" that makes the "calorie" more useful to the body vs. a different molecular structure of a different "calorie". More then an anatomy/physiology lesson here, and if you had very little to no education in the body's use and breakdown of calories into essential amino acids, for cellular use. If you had basic knowledge of general nutrition and calorie choice. You should get that not all calories are the same. Would you allow your child to consume bourbon over water? The answer is not unless you are completely lacking as a parent to a point of child abuse. You would get that the chemical makeup of bourbon, is not processed by the body, or tolerated as well as water, or even soda for that matter. It isn't the calories count equality. It is the calorie's molecular make up that makes it different.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »singingflutelady 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'.
I know what it reads, I had the painful experience of reading it.
But you still haven't answered my question, find me a source that addresses aspartame or any other variation of sweetener as bad for you?
Americans are so paranoid about it, that beverage companies are ripping their products off the shelves, and it's absolutely insane.
Do you really think İncreased appetite is not bad for you? İ didn't say that artificial sweeteners going to give you cancer or kill you (More time and research needed for this). I just said its bad as sugar (even worse according to some studies)0 -
robs_ready wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »singingflutelady 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'.
I know what it reads, I had the painful experience of reading it.
But you still haven't answered my question, find me a source that addresses aspartame or any other variation of sweetener as bad for you?
Americans are so paranoid about it, that beverage companies are ripping their products off the shelves, and it's absolutely insane.
Do you really think İncreased appetite is not bad for you? İ didn't say that artificial sweeteners going to give you cancer or kill you (More time and research needed for this). I just said its bad as sugar (even worse according to some studies)
I feel that you haven't read any reliable studies. Above, I posted a book you should think about getting your hands on, which provides an overview of the tests aspartame and other artificial sweeteners have undergone over the years - it concludes that aspartame is not bad for you. It is not a carcinogen.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »singingflutelady 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'.
I know what it reads, I had the painful experience of reading it.
But you still haven't answered my question, find me a source that addresses aspartame or any other variation of sweetener as bad for you?
Americans are so paranoid about it, that beverage companies are ripping their products off the shelves, and it's absolutely insane.
Do you really think İncreased appetite is not bad for you? İ didn't say that artificial sweeteners going to give you cancer or kill you (More time and research needed for this). I just said its bad as sugar (even worse according to some studies)
You said "don't say that it's healthy." Are you saying the negative consequences are limited to an increased appetite and are the same thing as one will experience eating sugar?0 -
OMG water water water. Diet Coke is FULL of chemicals. 0 calories or not do not drink that stuff EVER. If you really need to have a soda, have the regular. Your body knows how to adjust and eliminate real sugar not artificial chemicals that that can cause cancer. water, tea, coffee, juice, there are so many alternatives. please no soda, especially diet!!0
-
Sparkles_Chaos_n_Curves wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
You just reiterated, what I said. It isn't the fact that it's a calorie, it is how your body is able to process the chemical or components of the calorie. All viable calories are broken down in the body through digestion to turn then into amino triphosphate (ATP) for your cells to use as energy..... However, it's the ease in which the body can breakdown the components of the "calorie" that makes the "calorie" more useful to the body vs. a different molecular structure of a different "calorie". More then an anatomy physiology lesson here, and if you had very little to no education in the bodies use and breakdown of calories into essential amino acids, for cellular use. If you had basic knowledge of general nutrition and calorie choice. You should get that not all calories are the same. Would you allow your child to consume bourbon over water? The answer is not unless you are completely lacking as a parent to a point of child abuse. You would get that the chemical makeup of bourbon, is not processed by the body, or tolerated as well as water, or even soda for that matter. It isn't the calories count equality. It is the calorie's molecular make up that makes it different.
You're talking like calories are things you can touch. They're not.
The calories your body uses are simply a measurement of the energy contained within the foods. Calories don't have components. The calories are not broken down. The food is, the components of the food (carbs, fats, proteins, alcohol) are then turned into ATP through the various pathways and that ATP provides energy that we can measure in the form of calories. Your body can make ATP out of any of the digestible macronutrients.
And your water vs. bourbon example is just silly.0 -
OMG water water water. Diet Coke is FULL of chemicals. 0 calories or not do not drink that stuff EVER. If you really need to have a soda, have the regular. Your body knows how to adjust and eliminate real sugar not artificial chemicals that that can cause cancer. water, tea, coffee, juice, there are so many alternatives. please no soda, especially diet!!
Water, tea, coffee, and juice all have chemicals too.0 -
OMG water water water. Diet Coke is FULL of chemicals. 0 calories or not do not drink that stuff EVER. If you really need to have a soda, have the regular. Your body knows how to adjust and eliminate real sugar not artificial chemicals that that can cause cancer. water, tea, coffee, juice, there are so many alternatives. please no soda, especially diet!!
Typical Tap Water Content:
Chlorine
Fluorine compounds
Trihalomethanes (THMs)
Salts of:
arsenic
radium
aluminium
copper
lead
mercury
cadmium
barium
Hormones
Nitrates
Pesticides
0 -
robs_ready wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »singingflutelady 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'.
I know what it reads, I had the painful experience of reading it.
But you still haven't answered my question, find me a source that addresses aspartame or any other variation of sweetener as bad for you?
Americans are so paranoid about it, that beverage companies are ripping their products off the shelves, and it's absolutely insane.
Do you really think İncreased appetite is not bad for you? İ didn't say that artificial sweeteners going to give you cancer or kill you (More time and research needed for this). I just said its bad as sugar (even worse according to some studies)
What does that even mean? As bad as sugar? It's absolute garbage.
It all boils down to moderation, sugar ain't bad for you, unless you consume lots of it.
Sweetner isn't bad for you either under the same context.
Increased appetite isn't bad for you, it's not going to kill you or have a negative impact on your body. For a lot of people diet soda is a great alternative to mountain dews and coke, which are high in calories and can potentially wreck havoc on insulin levels.
You've completely taken a source out of context, quoting mercola (which is absolute dog for any referencing) and demonised Sweetner as bad for you (which the source originally discusses) based on a potential increase in hunger levels.
0 -
OMG water water water. Diet Coke is FULL of chemicals. 0 calories or not do not drink that stuff EVER. If you really need to have a soda, have the regular. Your body knows how to adjust and eliminate real sugar not artificial chemicals that that can cause cancer. water, tea, coffee, juice, there are so many alternatives. please no soda, especially diet!!
Really, first post? Did you even bother reading the previous 6 pages?0 -
robs_ready wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »singingflutelady 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'.
I know what it reads, I had the painful experience of reading it.
But you still haven't answered my question, find me a source that addresses aspartame or any other variation of sweetener as bad for you?
Americans are so paranoid about it, that beverage companies are ripping their products off the shelves, and it's absolutely insane.
Do you really think İncreased appetite is not bad for you? İ didn't say that artificial sweeteners going to give you cancer or kill you (More time and research needed for this). I just said its bad as sugar (even worse according to some studies)
I have yet to read an obituary of someone who died of "increased appetite"
And....In.0 -
-
I think the important question is, "Would Mercola drink 0 calorie MerCola?" I'm seeing future product line, with a lot of fear mongering right now to open up the possibility of competition in a future launch..0
-
TheBeachgod wrote: »OMG water water water. Diet Coke is FULL of chemicals. 0 calories or not do not drink that stuff EVER. If you really need to have a soda, have the regular. Your body knows how to adjust and eliminate real sugar not artificial chemicals that that can cause cancer. water, tea, coffee, juice, there are so many alternatives. please no soda, especially diet!!
Typical Tap Water Content:
Chlorine
Fluorine compounds
Trihalomethanes (THMs)
Salts of:
arsenic
radium
aluminium
copper
lead
mercury
cadmium
barium
Hormones
Nitrates
Pesticides
Great.
Now I have this song stuck in my head
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r7hO-1ItqXw 0 -
OMG water water water. Diet Coke is FULL of chemicals. 0 calories or not do not drink that stuff EVER. If you really need to have a soda, have the regular. Your body knows how to adjust and eliminate real sugar not artificial chemicals that that can cause cancer. water, tea, coffee, juice, there are so many alternatives. please no soda, especially diet!!
Strong first post.
On here, we generally encourage reading a thread's contents before blindly posting something nonsensical.0 -
So. The consensus appears to be that there is nothing at all that shows that diet soda and specifically aspartame is unhealthy or dare one suggest... bad for you.
First lets give this the common sense treatment. You don't let your pets drink it, you don't give it to your houseplants, but you're fine guzzling it all day for yourself. The human body is only up to 60% water so why would one be so foolish as to assume that replenishing that water with... water, would be the healthier option.
Frothy yet? You know you are.
Now for some science.
Diet Drink Consumption and the Risk of Cardiovascular Events:A Report from the Women’s Health Initiative - CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates an association between high diet drink intake and CVD outcomes and mortality in post-menopausal women in the WHI OS
"High diet drink intake" equates to two or more per day. The control/reference group being 0-3 per month.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269637605_Diet_Drink_Consumption_and_the_Risk_of_Cardiovascular_Events_A_Report_from_the_Women's_Health_Initiative
But I'm not a post-menopausal woman, so I'm obviously safe.
If, however, you are a member of the Kingdom Animalia, aka Metazoa for the truly hardcore, this next bit of information might be more interesting to you.
A review of the genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of aspartame: does it safe or not? - lets just all take a moment to chuckle at the meme worthiness of that horribly and hopefully inaccurately translated title.
Ok, got it out of your system? Personally, I cut the guy some slack since he spent his free time learning about Genetics and not English.
His findings were concluded as thus:
Table1 summarizes the genotoxicity profile of aspartame. A total of 24 assessments were reported in 15 articles and chromosomal aberrations tests were most often used. The percentage of positive results was nearly 55%. Considering all the data we can state that aspartame is a moderate genotoxic agent. The quantitative data on aspartame carcinogenicity in animal models are summarized in Table2. A total of 11 assessments were reported in five articles. Among them the percentage of the positive results was 73 %. Brain,prostate, breast tumors, lymphoma, leukemia, cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis and ureter, malignant schwannomas of peripheral nerves were observed in rats. Higher proportion of the positive results indicates that aspartame is most probably a carcinogenic additive to animals. In addition, in epidemiological studies the percentage of the positive results was lower than in animal models. Nearly 45 % of the existing results yielded as positive. Brain tumor, NHL, leukemia, urinary tract tumors and multiple myeloma were reported in three articles. Therefore, long-term exposure can play an important role in the development of aspartame induced cancer which is stated in the reviewed literature.
We know that human biomonitoring studies for food additives are not possible since large numbers of reasons can be responsible for the tumorogenesis, for example life style, nutritional status, stress,smoking, alcohol use, occupational exposure etc. Therefore, in vivo and in vitro tests become more important methods than epidemiological studies to test potential genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of food additives. So, consumers should be aware of the side effects of aspartame before they consume. Further genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies should be conducted to reach a clear view on its safety.
If you want to see the tables, you can go here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260131284_A_review_of_the_genotoxic_and_carcinogenic_effects_of_aspartame_does_it_safe_or_not
I know I'm bucking the trend by putting his complete conclusion here instead of cherry picking for efficacy, but oh wells. Mostly I just want to watch the ensuing nitpicking and misinterpretation while completely ignoring the overall point of the review which is that aspartame is a moderate genotoxic agent.
Now I know you're frothy, so, nitpick, defend your stance by attacking the definition of specific words and justify away. I don't mind, really.
[edited by MFP moderator]0 -
robs_ready wrote: »singingflutelady 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'.
I know no one bothers to read what's in this actual thread, but a few pages back I posted my n=1 that in 25 years of Diet Coke consumption I have never found the whole "artificial sweeteners increase your appetite" to be true. If a person does find that to be true for themselves, and doesn't have sufficient room in their calorie allotment to offset the hunger, then that may be a reason for that person to not consume diet soda. But that doesn't make artificial sweeteners "bad" or harmful and the link that has been posted nearly a dozen times which illustrates why aspartame isn't scary just continues to be ignored...0 -
The time I spent looking for legitimate, peer-reviewed evidence was completely wasted. It sort of feels like speaking to a brick wall.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions