Diet Coke, friend or foe?
Options
Replies
-
Leave it to MFP to have a thread this long on friggin Diet Coke. lol. Just when I though the Keto zealots were some of the strangest folks this side of the lunatic asylum, bring on the sugar/sweetener crowd.
I'll make this easy: Diet Coke contains no calories. If you are here to lose weight, drink as much of it as you like.9 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »No, it's not healthy. It's basically a bunch of chemicals mixed together to be sinfully addictive & wonderful. I'm a believer in real, organic food, but I'm addicted to diet mt dew....I allow myself one a day. We can't be saints. Everything in moderation.
So you didn't bother to read the whole thread?
In particular, this link?
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary
There is nothing "scientific" about this thread. It is simply one MFP user's long-winded opinion, and because he has a scientific background, and it goes along with the pro artificial sweetener mentality, it gets posted over and over to prove that it is safe. I truly don't understand how this thread is "scientific" and articles that get posted against artificial sweeteners are all "unscientific"?
Which part of the structure of aspartyl-phenylalanine methol described in the first post of that thread do you feel is an "opnion"? Are we really going to say that the structure of a molecule is an opnion now?
He clearly states at the beginning of his post it is why he "personally believes" it is safe:
"Wanted to clear some things up about aspartame if I could just to explain why I personally believe there is absolutely no reason to fear aspartame."
I'm not arguing the structure...I'm arguing what it all means.
I've read his post and I see he cited sources, only problem is those sources no longer exist (except for the first one), so one cannot exactly view the source.
I'm not saying he is wrong. He very well could be right, but it cannot be said for certain that artificial sweeteners are harmless, just in the same way I cannot say for certain that they are harmful. There are studies that are in favor of both sides. That is the point I'm trying to make...there is no definitive safe or harmful verdict. Could they be safe? Yes. Could they be harmful? Yes. Obviously the jury is still out because studies are still being done on the subject.
You don't know how science works. The scientific consensus on aspartame, internationally, is that it is safe.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3496/epdf
I am very familiar with how science works. Just because the science and/or the FDA has approved something as safe now, does not mean they will not retract that and say it is harmful years down the line. Examples:
Transfats
Cigarettes
E-cigarettes
Countless prescription drugs
Artificial dyes (not yet proven unsafe by the fda, but many brands are removing them for this very reason)
Tanning beds/tanning and skin cancer
The list goes on. As I said, I'm not trying to prove that artificial sweeteners are harmful, I'm simply making the point that you cannot with out a doubt say they are not harmful. If they were 100% safe there would not be these debates on the subject.
You can honestly tell me that without a doubt, aspartame is not harmful?
Also cigarettes were never actually thought as good for you...
There are YouTube videos from the 1950's where they tell you that more doctors smoke Camels (I think it's Camels) than any other cigarette. The magazines were loaded with these ads.
The first warnings on packages (cigarette smoking MAY be hazardous to your health) were added I believe in 1964.
Another favorite - A Flintstones commercial for Winston cigarettes. It's on YouTube.
That doesn't mean that actual doctors or scientists or for that matter, ordinary people actually believed cigarettes were good for you.
Yes, some knew and some suspected.
But the smoking rate reached 50%+ in the early 60's. Given that the older generation at that time did not smoke much (I'm think of my grandparents, great aunts and uncles, older cousins, and their friends who immigrated from Europe), the smoking rate for the male WW II generation, who were given free cigarettes during the war, had to approach 75%. The message "more doctors smoke Camels" probably resonated.
And when you think back to that time, men were smoking a pack a day, working in filthy factories that had no safety standards, and breathed the filthy air that the factories were spewing out in the smokestacks. No wonder they were dropping dead from heart attacks left and right.
Back to the original post - if you like Diet Coke (I prefer Diet Pepsi), drink it until they provide DEFINITIVE evidence that it can be linked to a disease or illness. So far they have not. Tastes great, no calories.
I would suggest that prohibition and the nascent war on drugs was a larger cause of the rise in smoking.
I would also suggest that cost and availability were major contributors.
Tobacco became more accessible. Discretional household spending increased. And Opium/Heroin/Cocaine/Cannabis were criminalized.0 -
I know there are people on here that say I'm a tin-hat wearing conspiracy freak, and there is no evidence, but drinks with aspartame causes severe aching in my calves and knees if I consume for a prolonged period (few days to a week), so I stay away from any diet drinks.3
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Leave it to MFP to have a thread this long on friggin Diet Coke. lol. Just when I though the Keto zealots were some of the strangest folks this side of the lunatic asylum, bring on the sugar/sweetener crowd.
I'll make this easy: Diet Coke contains no calories. If you are here to lose weight, drink as much of it as you like.
The question is, why are you bothering to follow a thread in which you have no interest?
In the interest of putting to rest the multitude of "woo" which abounds this thread by those who would be better served moving this discussion over to the Alex Jones forums where they might find a more captive audience.4 -
I know there are people on here that say I'm a tin-hat wearing conspiracy freak, and there is no evidence, but drinks with aspartame causes severe aching in my calves and knees if I consume for a prolonged period (few days to a week), so I stay away from any diet drinks.
Nope - not a tin-hat wearing conspiracy freak - some people do have reactions to aspartame, just like some people have reactions to peanuts, strawberries and other food items.
The only reaction that people have is to those that use the fear-mongering sites to try and prove that the producers of the diet drinks are in league with the devil and they are trying to poison us with their aspartame laced drinks. The biggest issue that I personally have with the 'aspartame is evil' crowd is the empirical evidence that exists right before their eyes that they refuse to look at - MILLIONS of people across the entire planet consume aspartame every friggin day and have been for years and years and there is not a single documented evidence based example that shows a person died from ingesting aspartame.4 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »No, it's not healthy. It's basically a bunch of chemicals mixed together to be sinfully addictive & wonderful. I'm a believer in real, organic food, but I'm addicted to diet mt dew....I allow myself one a day. We can't be saints. Everything in moderation.
So you didn't bother to read the whole thread?
In particular, this link?
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary
There is nothing "scientific" about this thread. It is simply one MFP user's long-winded opinion, and because he has a scientific background, and it goes along with the pro artificial sweetener mentality, it gets posted over and over to prove that it is safe. I truly don't understand how this thread is "scientific" and articles that get posted against artificial sweeteners are all "unscientific"?
Which part of the structure of aspartyl-phenylalanine methol described in the first post of that thread do you feel is an "opnion"? Are we really going to say that the structure of a molecule is an opnion now?
He clearly states at the beginning of his post it is why he "personally believes" it is safe:
"Wanted to clear some things up about aspartame if I could just to explain why I personally believe there is absolutely no reason to fear aspartame."
I'm not arguing the structure...I'm arguing what it all means.
I've read his post and I see he cited sources, only problem is those sources no longer exist (except for the first one), so one cannot exactly view the source.
I'm not saying he is wrong. He very well could be right, but it cannot be said for certain that artificial sweeteners are harmless, just in the same way I cannot say for certain that they are harmful. There are studies that are in favor of both sides. That is the point I'm trying to make...there is no definitive safe or harmful verdict. Could they be safe? Yes. Could they be harmful? Yes. Obviously the jury is still out because studies are still being done on the subject.
You don't know how science works. The scientific consensus on aspartame, internationally, is that it is safe.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3496/epdf
I am very familiar with how science works. Just because the science and/or the FDA has approved something as safe now, does not mean they will not retract that and say it is harmful years down the line. Examples:
Transfats
Cigarettes
E-cigarettes
Countless prescription drugs
Artificial dyes (not yet proven unsafe by the fda, but many brands are removing them for this very reason)
Tanning beds/tanning and skin cancer
The list goes on. As I said, I'm not trying to prove that artificial sweeteners are harmful, I'm simply making the point that you cannot with out a doubt say they are not harmful. If they were 100% safe there would not be these debates on the subject.
You can honestly tell me that without a doubt, aspartame is not harmful?
Also cigarettes were never actually thought as good for you...
There are YouTube videos from the 1950's where they tell you that more doctors smoke Camels (I think it's Camels) than any other cigarette. The magazines were loaded with these ads.
The first warnings on packages (cigarette smoking MAY be hazardous to your health) were added I believe in 1964.
Another favorite - A Flintstones commercial for Winston cigarettes. It's on YouTube.
That doesn't mean that actual doctors or scientists or for that matter, ordinary people actually believed cigarettes were good for you.
Yes, some knew and some suspected.
But the smoking rate reached 50%+ in the early 60's. Given that the older generation at that time did not smoke much (I'm think of my grandparents, great aunts and uncles, older cousins, and their friends who immigrated from Europe), the smoking rate for the male WW II generation, who were given free cigarettes during the war, had to approach 75%. The message "more doctors smoke Camels" probably resonated.
And when you think back to that time, men were smoking a pack a day, working in filthy factories that had no safety standards, and breathed the filthy air that the factories were spewing out in the smokestacks. No wonder they were dropping dead from heart attacks left and right.
Back to the original post - if you like Diet Coke (I prefer Diet Pepsi), drink it until they provide DEFINITIVE evidence that it can be linked to a disease or illness. So far they have not. Tastes great, no calories.
I would suggest that prohibition and the nascent war on drugs was a larger cause of the rise in smoking.
I would also suggest that cost and availability were major contributors.
Tobacco became more accessible. Discretional household spending increased. And Opium/Heroin/Cocaine/Cannabis were criminalized.
Hardly anyone was using cannabis/cocaine/heroin/opium in the 50's. It barely registered.
No, by the 50s they'd switched to cigarettes. in the 90's through the 30's(prior to prohibition and criminalization) use was endemic.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CarlDuffin1 wrote: »What's the difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke - apart from the different label?
They taste different. I like diet Coke and cannot stand Coke Zero. (The latter may taste more like actual Coke, which I also hate.)
I guess Coke Zero is now Coke Zero Sugar? I saw someone buying a 6 pack the other day.
My stepdad is the same way. He loves the taste of Diet Coke and hates Coke Zero because it tastes so different.
I, on the other hand, am fine with the taste of Diet Coke, but prefer Coke Zero because it does taste more like regular Coca-Cola.0 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Leave it to MFP to have a thread this long on friggin Diet Coke. lol. Just when I though the Keto zealots were some of the strangest folks this side of the lunatic asylum, bring on the sugar/sweetener crowd.
I'll make this easy: Diet Coke contains no calories. If you are here to lose weight, drink as much of it as you like.
The question is, why are you bothering to follow a thread in which you have no interest?
In the interest of putting to rest the multitude of "woo" which abounds this thread by those who would be better served moving this discussion over to the Alex Jones forums where they might find a more captive audience.
Alex Jones?
Alex Jones is the #1 conspiracy theorist on the interwebs... he literally comes from the point of view that is the government is involved, it must be a conspiracy. You should check him out for giggles if for nothing else.4 -
Friend or foe... It's interesting. I think it depends on how much it is in your life. People are great friends unless they are too much in your life. Once they start hanging around too much they become foes pretty quickly.
OMG I'm so glad I'm not the only one with those friends!
(But Diet Coke and Diet Dr Pepper FTW)0 -
Friend or foe... It's interesting. I think it depends on how much it is in your life. People are great friends unless they are too much in your life. Once they start hanging around too much they become foes pretty quickly. I imagine the same with diet coke - one every other day is probably just fine. Four a day is a definite problem.
Why would four a day be a definite problem? I don't drink any sort of soda, diet or otherwise, just because I have never really had a taste for it, but I have no issue with people that do. In the case of diet soda, tell me what would be the harm of drinking four zero calorie drinks a day. There is absolutely no credible research that shows that it is harmful so I don't understand this type of thinking at all.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CarlDuffin1 wrote: »What's the difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke - apart from the different label?
They taste different. I like diet Coke and cannot stand Coke Zero. (The latter may taste more like actual Coke, which I also hate.)
I guess Coke Zero is now Coke Zero Sugar? I saw someone buying a 6 pack the other day.
My stepdad is the same way. He loves the taste of Diet Coke and hates Coke Zero because it tastes so different.
I, on the other hand, am fine with the taste of Diet Coke, but prefer Coke Zero because it does taste more like regular Coca-Cola.
Coke Zero was a reformulation of Diet Coke to make it taste more like regular Coke. Market research found that many people preferred the taste of Diet, and wanting to avoid another New Coke/Coke Classic fiasco, it was introduced alongside Diet instead of replacing it.
Coke Zero Sugar is mostly a marketing gimmick. Since sugar is the devil at the moment, they rebranded it to make it clear that it has zero sugar. It was supposedly tweaked to be even closer tasting to regular, but if there's any difference it's too subtle for me to tell.
Personally, I prefer regular Coke, but drink Coke Zero because it's close enough. I used to hate Diet, but have grown to tolerate it when Zero isn't available.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »CarlDuffin1 wrote: »What's the difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke - apart from the different label?
They taste different. I like diet Coke and cannot stand Coke Zero. (The latter may taste more like actual Coke, which I also hate.)
I guess Coke Zero is now Coke Zero Sugar? I saw someone buying a 6 pack the other day.
My stepdad is the same way. He loves the taste of Diet Coke and hates Coke Zero because it tastes so different.
I, on the other hand, am fine with the taste of Diet Coke, but prefer Coke Zero because it does taste more like regular Coca-Cola.
Coke Zero was a reformulation of Diet Coke to make it taste more like regular Coke. Market research found that many people preferred the taste of Diet, and wanting to avoid another New Coke/Coke Classic fiasco, it was introduced alongside Diet instead of replacing it.
Coke Zero Sugar is mostly a marketing gimmick. Since sugar is the devil at the moment, they rebranded it to make it clear that it has zero sugar. It was supposedly tweaked to be even closer tasting to regular, but if there's any difference it's too subtle for me to tell.
Personally, I prefer regular Coke, but drink Coke Zero because it's close enough. I used to hate Diet, but have grown to tolerate it when Zero isn't available.
I *feel* like Coke Zero Sugar tastes slightly different to me, but I can't put my finger on why. And it might just be my mind being tricked by the different label.0 -
I guess it depends on if you are truely health conscious or just weight loss conscious.7
-
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
Not here to debate, but to add my personal opinion like 200 other people on this thread.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Not here to debate, but to add my personal opinion like 200 other people on this thread.
The problem is healthiness or unhealthiness isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact... further, unless you have a specific personal reaction to one of the ingredients in diet coke, it's not unhealthy for you.
9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Not here to debate, but to add my personal opinion like 200 other people on this thread.
You were getting called out for insinuating that Diet Coke is harmful to your health, you were not being debated. It would only be a debate if you were actually stating something of real substance and not just your own biased opinion.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions