Aspartame in diet sodas causes diabets and weight gain?!
Replies
-
sarahdancerq wrote: »While my parents were getting onto me about my weight that was brought up. Not used this appsince high school. I'm 21 now and 226.6 lbs 5'4"..... Yay. Is it true? Cause I love my diet soda and zero soda alternatives to regular soda (
SarahdancerQ- you could drive yourself nuts on this, and any number of dietary issues, in these forums. I would suggest that you research your question by looking to authoritative publications and websites. There are tons of pros and cons on the issue, and ultimately you must decide what is right for you. We are all unique. A food that negatively impacts me may not have the same effect on you. Genetics has much to do with diabetes and whether you will acquire it. However, there is enough evidence to support the theory that environmental factors can trigger chronic diseases. Therefore, I see your question not so much as "Do artificial sweeteners cause diabetes and weight gain?". I see your question as "Do I want to take the chance that artificial sweeteners cause diabetes and weight gain?" That is a question only you can answer.
Here's my last two cents: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/08/29/aspartame-health-risks.aspx?
Congratulations on your decision to improve your health. Good luck on your journey. With dedication you can achieve it.29 -
kshama2001 wrote: »MichelleLaree13 wrote: »I know there is a lot of information out there saying it is ok and other information saying it isnt. I chose not to consume artificial sweeteners because I personally believe extensively processed foods arent as healthy.
I dont think it necessarily effects weight loss although I read somewhere that artificial sweeteners screw with our perception of what sweet tastes like since they are so much sweeter than say fruit sugar.
I just don't understand this mindset that processing is inherently bad, that something otherwise ok (or good) becomes bad simply because of processing.
I get that some types of processing can be less idea than others. But saying it's bad simply because it is processed doesn't make sense.
She said "extensively processed" which could be equivalent to the Brazilian government's Ultra Processed: http://189.28.128.100/dab/docs/portaldab/publicacoes/guia_alimentar_populacao_ingles.pdf
They have different recommendations based on:
1. Natural/minimally processed
2. Processed
3. Ultra processed
I wasn't referring just to her post; there are many on the forums that call processed foods bad just because they are processed.
But even for "ultra processed," I think one must look at what about it is making it "bad." For example, someone mentioned instant noodles and that they may break down differently than regular pasta. That makes some sense as a potential reason to avoid them.
Maybe. But no one eats noodles (pasta or instant) on their own, for the most part. I think I made instant noodles last night -- I was experimenting with an Asian noodle salad and bought some Japanese noodles (Soba?) which were not dried, and so cooked extremely quickly in boiling water compared to pasta. There was no packet or anything and I combined them with chicken, almonds, cabbage and some other vegetables, and a homemade dressing (and garlic and ginger, etc.).
Even if the noodles, on their own, broke down differently than pasta -- and to be honest I'm skeptical that that matters -- the meal as a whole would counteract that, so deciding it (made mostly with whole foods) was "ultraprocessed and thus to be avoided) strikes me as a trees vs. forest way of looking at this.
I think the appeal that the Brazilian rules have for lots of people is similar to the simpler Michael Pollan stuff -- for many of us if you focus on mostly home cooking you eat better because you have to put more thought into it than if you just buy preprepared stuff.
But generalizing about that too much I think ignores some realities.
First, some people are very thoughtful about the pre-packaged foods they choose, but just hate to cook or whatever.
Second, many people use instant or ultra processed stuff as a help to make cooking with whole foods easier. stevencloser's example demonstrates this, and WinoGelato often gives such examples. My mom did that to some degree when I was growing up, and my parents do more now, and when I was in my 20s I would commonly buy rice and beans and add vegetables -- a quite healthy meal but fast and easy for someone who never had really learned to cook regularly (something I've rectified).
The discussions of ultraprocessed foods seem as if unless you eat only whole foods based on the idea that any ultraprocessed is inherently bad that you will slip into a life of overeating unbalanced meals and eating NO whole foods, but of course that's not how life really is.
I do think this might relate to how often the people pushing NO processed (meaning ultra processed) foods are the same ones that not so long ago were living on only them, whereas it's the people who always ate mostly balanced meals with whole foods and some ultraprocessed ingredients or additions who find the all or nothing thing problematic.
The approach of the Brazilian rules seems to be sensible in a broad population sense (same with eat less sugar, etc.), but when people apply it to every individual and suggest that whether a particular diet is healthy or not is dependent on whether you eat ultraprocessed foods or that a bite of such makes an otherwise good diet bad, I think there's a misunderstanding.5 -
esmerelda9479 wrote: »My husband used to drink a 2 liter bottle of Mountain Dew a day. Another friend Diet Coke..like nonstop. Neither one was/is overweight but they both developed type 2 Diabetes. When I was in my twenties I drank diet drinks non-stop. I'm 5'10 and weighed 129 lbs at the time. I haven't developed Diabetes but I found out that I was almost prediabetic. I think it's a combination of genetics, activity levels, belly fat and diet. I haven't had soda in two years besides one time taking a sip. I spit it out as there was a very strong chemical taste that I never noticed before. I think anything you overdo can be bad(even exercise!) and have consequences on your health.I would try cutting back and see how you feel
One of my grandmothers drank diet a&w root beer nonstop. The other one didn't. Neither were obese (except the diet root beer one near the end of her life- in her 90's) both were slightly overweight at times though.
The A&W drinking grandmother never had any blood sugar issues. The other one developed type 2 in her 50's. The big difference? The one who developed T2D had many relatives with the disorder, even those with healthy lifestyles.
Perfect example of what research has shown:
The #1 risk factor for T2 diabetes is genetics
(#2 is obesity, then it goes to things like age, if your mother had Gestational diabetes while carrying you, some cancer treatments (especially in childhood), long term use of some medications like statins and certain antidepressants, etc) No where do they say what you eat or drink causes diabetes. How much you eat CAN put you at risk.7 -
Tucson_Traveler wrote: »sarahdancerq wrote: »While my parents were getting onto me about my weight that was brought up. Not used this appsince high school. I'm 21 now and 226.6 lbs 5'4"..... Yay. Is it true? Cause I love my diet soda and zero soda alternatives to regular soda (
SarahdancerQ- you could drive yourself nuts on this, and any number of dietary issues, in these forums. I would suggest that you research your question by looking to authoritative publications and websites. There are tons of pros and cons on the issue, and ultimately you must decide what is right for you. We are all unique. A food that negatively impacts me may not have the same effect on you. Genetics has much to do with diabetes and whether you will acquire it. However, there is enough evidence to support the theory that environmental factors can trigger chronic diseases. Therefore, I see your question not so much as "Do artificial sweeteners cause diabetes and weight gain?". I see your question as "Do I want to take the chance that artificial sweeteners cause diabetes and weight gain?" That is a question only you can answer.
Here's my last two cents: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/08/29/aspartame-health-risks.aspx?
Congratulations on your decision to improve your health. Good luck on your journey. With dedication you can achieve it.
If you reptuable sources, mercola is a joke. You would be better off looking at the NIH or a university.22 -
Tucson_Traveler wrote: »sarahdancerq wrote: »While my parents were getting onto me about my weight that was brought up. Not used this appsince high school. I'm 21 now and 226.6 lbs 5'4"..... Yay. Is it true? Cause I love my diet soda and zero soda alternatives to regular soda (
SarahdancerQ- you could drive yourself nuts on this, and any number of dietary issues, in these forums. I would suggest that you research your question by looking to authoritative publications and websites. There are tons of pros and cons on the issue, and ultimately you must decide what is right for you. We are all unique. A food that negatively impacts me may not have the same effect on you. Genetics has much to do with diabetes and whether you will acquire it. However, there is enough evidence to support the theory that environmental factors can trigger chronic diseases. Therefore, I see your question not so much as "Do artificial sweeteners cause diabetes and weight gain?". I see your question as "Do I want to take the chance that artificial sweeteners cause diabetes and weight gain?" That is a question only you can answer.
Here's my last two cents: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/08/29/aspartame-health-risks.aspx?
Congratulations on your decision to improve your health. Good luck on your journey. With dedication you can achieve it.
Unfortunately Mercola is not an authoritative source. He scares people into believing everything they can find in a regular store is trying to kill them, then sells them supplements and accessories to protect themselves. I subscribed to his website on the advice of a coworker once upon a time and every week I would get another email saying something else was giving me cancer. It was depressing as hell. Then I got an email trying to sell me a grounding mat, and after I stopped laughing, I unsubscribed.
Actual authoritative sources have asserted time and again that aspartame and diet drinks in general are perfectly safe under normal circumstances. Normal circumstances being you don't drink 4 liters a day, you don't have some relatively rare medical condition, and you haven't experienced obvious food-sensitivity-like physical symptoms like a headache or bloating.21 -
Diet soda is not bad for you. In fact I once asked a dietician about it and she told me that for Aspatame to have any chance of causing cancer, you would have to be hooked up to a drip of the stuff for weeks on end. My boyfriends mother buys regular Coke but when I ask for Diet Coke she looks disgusted and says "I won't keep that stuff in my home it's so bad for you". Sigh... I guess some people are just misinformed.17
-
Tucson_Traveler wrote: »sarahdancerq wrote: »While my parents were getting onto me about my weight that was brought up. Not used this appsince high school. I'm 21 now and 226.6 lbs 5'4"..... Yay. Is it true? Cause I love my diet soda and zero soda alternatives to regular soda (
SarahdancerQ- you could drive yourself nuts on this, and any number of dietary issues, in these forums. I would suggest that you research your question by looking to authoritative publications and websites. There are tons of pros and cons on the issue, and ultimately you must decide what is right for you. We are all unique. A food that negatively impacts me may not have the same effect on you. Genetics has much to do with diabetes and whether you will acquire it. However, there is enough evidence to support the theory that environmental factors can trigger chronic diseases. Therefore, I see your question not so much as "Do artificial sweeteners cause diabetes and weight gain?". I see your question as "Do I want to take the chance that artificial sweeteners cause diabetes and weight gain?" That is a question only you can answer.
Here's my last two cents: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/08/29/aspartame-health-risks.aspx?
Congratulations on your decision to improve your health. Good luck on your journey. With dedication you can achieve it.
If you reptuable sources, mercola is a joke. You would be better off looking at the NIH or a university.
He's referred to as "MercoLOLa" for good reason.13 -
esmerelda9479 wrote: »My husband used to drink a 2 liter bottle of Mountain Dew a day. Another friend Diet Coke..like nonstop. Neither one was/is overweight but they both developed type 2 Diabetes. When I was in my twenties I drank diet drinks non-stop. I'm 5'10 and weighed 129 lbs at the time. I haven't developed Diabetes but I found out that I was almost prediabetic. I think it's a combination of genetics, activity levels, belly fat and diet. I haven't had soda in two years besides one time taking a sip. I spit it out as there was a very strong chemical taste that I never noticed before. I think anything you overdo can be bad(even exercise!) and have consequences on your health.I would try cutting back and see how you feel
One of my grandmothers drank diet a&w root beer nonstop. The other one didn't. Neither were obese (except the diet root beer one near the end of her life- in her 90's) both were slightly overweight at times though.
The A&W drinking grandmother never had any blood sugar issues. The other one developed type 2 in her 50's. The big difference? The one who developed T2D had many relatives with the disorder, even those with healthy lifestyles.
Perfect example of what research has shown:
The #1 risk factor for T2 diabetes is genetics
(#2 is obesity, then it goes to things like age, if your mother had Gestational diabetes while carrying you, some cancer treatments (especially in childhood), long term use of some medications like statins and certain antidepressants, etc) No where do they say what you eat or drink causes diabetes. How much you eat CAN put you at risk.
Exactly.
I once tried to explain the genetics link to someone and she insisted the only family link was because they learned bad lifestyle choices. She refused to believe that one of the relatives played tennis before breakfast every day, another was an avid sailboat enthusiast, and another worked extra miles of walking into their day. And they are pretty healthy, even if it was bland.2 -
i don't know the answer to your question, but i can say one thin about carbonated drinks .....they knacker your teeth!7
-
esmerelda9479 wrote: »My husband used to drink a 2 liter bottle of Mountain Dew a day. Another friend Diet Coke..like nonstop. Neither one was/is overweight but they both developed type 2 Diabetes. When I was in my twenties I drank diet drinks non-stop. I'm 5'10 and weighed 129 lbs at the time. I haven't developed Diabetes but I found out that I was almost prediabetic. I think it's a combination of genetics, activity levels, belly fat and diet. I haven't had soda in two years besides one time taking a sip. I spit it out as there was a very strong chemical taste that I never noticed before. I think anything you overdo can be bad(even exercise!) and have consequences on your health.I would try cutting back and see how you feel
One of my grandmothers drank diet a&w root beer nonstop. The other one didn't. Neither were obese (except the diet root beer one near the end of her life- in her 90's) both were slightly overweight at times though.
The A&W drinking grandmother never had any blood sugar issues. The other one developed type 2 in her 50's. The big difference? The one who developed T2D had many relatives with the disorder, even those with healthy lifestyles.
Perfect example of what research has shown:
The #1 risk factor for T2 diabetes is genetics
(#2 is obesity, then it goes to things like age, if your mother had Gestational diabetes while carrying you, some cancer treatments (especially in childhood), long term use of some medications like statins and certain antidepressants, etc) No where do they say what you eat or drink causes diabetes. How much you eat CAN put you at risk.
Exactly.
I once tried to explain the genetics link to someone and she insisted the only family link was because they learned bad lifestyle choices. She refused to believe that one of the relatives played tennis before breakfast every day, another was an avid sailboat enthusiast, and another worked extra miles of walking into their day. And they are pretty healthy, even if it was bland.
Hopefully she doesnt research and find out that certain races/ethnic groups have higher risk; it just might be mind bottling ... as do woman.1 -
esmerelda9479 wrote: »My husband used to drink a 2 liter bottle of Mountain Dew a day. Another friend Diet Coke..like nonstop. Neither one was/is overweight but they both developed type 2 Diabetes. When I was in my twenties I drank diet drinks non-stop. I'm 5'10 and weighed 129 lbs at the time. I haven't developed Diabetes but I found out that I was almost prediabetic. I think it's a combination of genetics, activity levels, belly fat and diet. I haven't had soda in two years besides one time taking a sip. I spit it out as there was a very strong chemical taste that I never noticed before. I think anything you overdo can be bad(even exercise!) and have consequences on your health.I would try cutting back and see how you feel
One of my grandmothers drank diet a&w root beer nonstop. The other one didn't. Neither were obese (except the diet root beer one near the end of her life- in her 90's) both were slightly overweight at times though.
The A&W drinking grandmother never had any blood sugar issues. The other one developed type 2 in her 50's. The big difference? The one who developed T2D had many relatives with the disorder, even those with healthy lifestyles.
Perfect example of what research has shown:
The #1 risk factor for T2 diabetes is genetics
(#2 is obesity, then it goes to things like age, if your mother had Gestational diabetes while carrying you, some cancer treatments (especially in childhood), long term use of some medications like statins and certain antidepressants, etc) No where do they say what you eat or drink causes diabetes. How much you eat CAN put you at risk.
Exactly.
I once tried to explain the genetics link to someone and she insisted the only family link was because they learned bad lifestyle choices. She refused to believe that one of the relatives played tennis before breakfast every day, another was an avid sailboat enthusiast, and another worked extra miles of walking into their day. And they are pretty healthy, even if it was bland.
Hopefully she doesnt research and find out that certain races/ethnic groups have higher risk; it just might be mind bottling ... as do woman.
My family is odd. In the genetic linked health issues, it's equal opportunity. My entire immediate family gets migraines, my brother and I get hemiplegic migraines. The diabetes and kidney stones are evenly spread too. Though the diabetes hasn't hit anyone in my generation yet. And only has been prediabetes in the generation before me.0 -
esmerelda9479 wrote: »My husband used to drink a 2 liter bottle of Mountain Dew a day. Another friend Diet Coke..like nonstop. Neither one was/is overweight but they both developed type 2 Diabetes. When I was in my twenties I drank diet drinks non-stop. I'm 5'10 and weighed 129 lbs at the time. I haven't developed Diabetes but I found out that I was almost prediabetic. I think it's a combination of genetics, activity levels, belly fat and diet. I haven't had soda in two years besides one time taking a sip. I spit it out as there was a very strong chemical taste that I never noticed before. I think anything you overdo can be bad(even exercise!) and have consequences on your health.I would try cutting back and see how you feel
One of my grandmothers drank diet a&w root beer nonstop. The other one didn't. Neither were obese (except the diet root beer one near the end of her life- in her 90's) both were slightly overweight at times though.
The A&W drinking grandmother never had any blood sugar issues. The other one developed type 2 in her 50's. The big difference? The one who developed T2D had many relatives with the disorder, even those with healthy lifestyles.
Perfect example of what research has shown:
The #1 risk factor for T2 diabetes is genetics
(#2 is obesity, then it goes to things like age, if your mother had Gestational diabetes while carrying you, some cancer treatments (especially in childhood), long term use of some medications like statins and certain antidepressants, etc) No where do they say what you eat or drink causes diabetes. How much you eat CAN put you at risk.
Exactly.
I once tried to explain the genetics link to someone and she insisted the only family link was because they learned bad lifestyle choices. She refused to believe that one of the relatives played tennis before breakfast every day, another was an avid sailboat enthusiast, and another worked extra miles of walking into their day. And they are pretty healthy, even if it was bland.
Hopefully she doesnt research and find out that certain races/ethnic groups have higher risk; it just might be mind bottling ... as do woman.
My family is odd. In the genetic linked health issues, it's equal opportunity. My entire immediate family gets migraines, my brother and I get hemiplegic migraines. The diabetes and kidney stones are evenly spread too. Though the diabetes hasn't hit anyone in my generation yet. And only has been prediabetes in the generation before me.
I hit the genetic lottery. My parents were 77 (Dad) and 95 (Mom) Grandparents lived to 78, 82, 94, and 96. Several gr-grandparents made it over 90 as did gr-gr-grandparents. Heart disease is unknown, cancer was unknown until my parents generation (Dad and his brother, lifestyle caused), I am the only one with diabetes. My risk factors: obesity and long term use of antidepressants.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »MichelleLaree13 wrote: »I know there is a lot of information out there saying it is ok and other information saying it isnt. I chose not to consume artificial sweeteners because I personally believe extensively processed foods arent as healthy.
I dont think it necessarily effects weight loss although I read somewhere that artificial sweeteners screw with our perception of what sweet tastes like since they are so much sweeter than say fruit sugar.
I just don't understand this mindset that processing is inherently bad, that something otherwise ok (or good) becomes bad simply because of processing.
I get that some types of processing can be less idea than others. But saying it's bad simply because it is processed doesn't make sense.
She said "extensively processed" which could be equivalent to the Brazilian government's Ultra Processed: http://189.28.128.100/dab/docs/portaldab/publicacoes/guia_alimentar_populacao_ingles.pdf
They have different recommendations based on:
1. Natural/minimally processed
2. Processed
3. Ultra processed
I wasn't referring just to her post; there are many on the forums that call processed foods bad just because they are processed.
But even for "ultra processed," I think one must look at what about it is making it "bad." For example, someone mentioned instant noodles and that they may break down differently than regular pasta. That makes some sense as a potential reason to avoid them.
Maybe. But no one eats noodles (pasta or instant) on their own, for the most part. I think I made instant noodles last night -- I was experimenting with an Asian noodle salad and bought some Japanese noodles (Soba?) which were not dried, and so cooked extremely quickly in boiling water compared to pasta. There was no packet or anything and I combined them with chicken, almonds, cabbage and some other vegetables, and a homemade dressing (and garlic and ginger, etc.).
Even if the noodles, on their own, broke down differently than pasta -- and to be honest I'm skeptical that that matters -- the meal as a whole would counteract that, so deciding it (made mostly with whole foods) was "ultraprocessed and thus to be avoided) strikes me as a trees vs. forest way of looking at this.
I think the appeal that the Brazilian rules have for lots of people is similar to the simpler Michael Pollan stuff -- for many of us if you focus on mostly home cooking you eat better because you have to put more thought into it than if you just buy preprepared stuff.
But generalizing about that too much I think ignores some realities.
First, some people are very thoughtful about the pre-packaged foods they choose, but just hate to cook or whatever.
Second, many people use instant or ultra processed stuff as a help to make cooking with whole foods easier. stevencloser's example demonstrates this, and WinoGelato often gives such examples. My mom did that to some degree when I was growing up, and my parents do more now, and when I was in my 20s I would commonly buy rice and beans and add vegetables -- a quite healthy meal but fast and easy for someone who never had really learned to cook regularly (something I've rectified).
The discussions of ultraprocessed foods seem as if unless you eat only whole foods based on the idea that any ultraprocessed is inherently bad that you will slip into a life of overeating unbalanced meals and eating NO whole foods, but of course that's not how life really is.
I do think this might relate to how often the people pushing NO processed (meaning ultra processed) foods are the same ones that not so long ago were living on only them, whereas it's the people who always ate mostly balanced meals with whole foods and some ultraprocessed ingredients or additions who find the all or nothing thing problematic.
The approach of the Brazilian rules seems to be sensible in a broad population sense (same with eat less sugar, etc.), but when people apply it to every individual and suggest that whether a particular diet is healthy or not is dependent on whether you eat ultraprocessed foods or that a bite of such makes an otherwise good diet bad, I think there's a misunderstanding.
I think we're mostly on the same page here. My point, originally, was that we can't say something is bad simply because it is processed, or ultra processed. If someone wants to convince me that I shouldn't eat something, it certainly needs to be more than "oh noez, the processed"8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »MichelleLaree13 wrote: »I know there is a lot of information out there saying it is ok and other information saying it isnt. I chose not to consume artificial sweeteners because I personally believe extensively processed foods arent as healthy.
I dont think it necessarily effects weight loss although I read somewhere that artificial sweeteners screw with our perception of what sweet tastes like since they are so much sweeter than say fruit sugar.
I just don't understand this mindset that processing is inherently bad, that something otherwise ok (or good) becomes bad simply because of processing.
I get that some types of processing can be less idea than others. But saying it's bad simply because it is processed doesn't make sense.
She said "extensively processed" which could be equivalent to the Brazilian government's Ultra Processed: http://189.28.128.100/dab/docs/portaldab/publicacoes/guia_alimentar_populacao_ingles.pdf
They have different recommendations based on:
1. Natural/minimally processed
2. Processed
3. Ultra processed
I wasn't referring just to her post; there are many on the forums that call processed foods bad just because they are processed.
But even for "ultra processed," I think one must look at what about it is making it "bad." For example, someone mentioned instant noodles and that they may break down differently than regular pasta. That makes some sense as a potential reason to avoid them.
Maybe. But no one eats noodles (pasta or instant) on their own, for the most part. I think I made instant noodles last night -- I was experimenting with an Asian noodle salad and bought some Japanese noodles (Soba?) which were not dried, and so cooked extremely quickly in boiling water compared to pasta. There was no packet or anything and I combined them with chicken, almonds, cabbage and some other vegetables, and a homemade dressing (and garlic and ginger, etc.).
Even if the noodles, on their own, broke down differently than pasta -- and to be honest I'm skeptical that that matters -- the meal as a whole would counteract that, so deciding it (made mostly with whole foods) was "ultraprocessed and thus to be avoided) strikes me as a trees vs. forest way of looking at this.
I think the appeal that the Brazilian rules have for lots of people is similar to the simpler Michael Pollan stuff -- for many of us if you focus on mostly home cooking you eat better because you have to put more thought into it than if you just buy preprepared stuff.
But generalizing about that too much I think ignores some realities.
First, some people are very thoughtful about the pre-packaged foods they choose, but just hate to cook or whatever.
Second, many people use instant or ultra processed stuff as a help to make cooking with whole foods easier. stevencloser's example demonstrates this, and WinoGelato often gives such examples. My mom did that to some degree when I was growing up, and my parents do more now, and when I was in my 20s I would commonly buy rice and beans and add vegetables -- a quite healthy meal but fast and easy for someone who never had really learned to cook regularly (something I've rectified).
The discussions of ultraprocessed foods seem as if unless you eat only whole foods based on the idea that any ultraprocessed is inherently bad that you will slip into a life of overeating unbalanced meals and eating NO whole foods, but of course that's not how life really is.
I do think this might relate to how often the people pushing NO processed (meaning ultra processed) foods are the same ones that not so long ago were living on only them, whereas it's the people who always ate mostly balanced meals with whole foods and some ultraprocessed ingredients or additions who find the all or nothing thing problematic.
The approach of the Brazilian rules seems to be sensible in a broad population sense (same with eat less sugar, etc.), but when people apply it to every individual and suggest that whether a particular diet is healthy or not is dependent on whether you eat ultraprocessed foods or that a bite of such makes an otherwise good diet bad, I think there's a misunderstanding.
I think we're mostly on the same page here. My point, originally, was that we can't say something is bad simply because it is processed, or ultra processed. If someone wants to convince me that I shouldn't eat something, it certainly needs to be more than "oh noez, the processed"
Oh, I was never intending to disagree with you, quite the opposite.
The Brazilian guidelines seem a lot more reasonable than the "oh, no, it's processed" stuff we run into that would suggest that dried pasta or canned beans or plain greek yogurt is always bad, but if you look at them I think the rationale for NO ultra processed foods doesn't work well either.
Does it make sense as a way to approach eating more broadly (i.e., be more mindful about foods, know what you are eating, spend time cooking, etc.)? On average, probably. But that doesn't translate sensibly into ALL ultraprocessed foods are ALWAYS bad in any amount, even if they are reasonably nutritious, are helpful in putting together a balanced, nutrient-dense diet, and we are thoughtful about how we use them.0 -
Been drinking 2-3 cans (330ml) of Coke Zero for months. I have only lost weight due to my diet. Can't say the Coke has had any effect on me whatsoever.2
-
I have no idea but I drink it anyway. Because zero calories3
-
I went to a family reunion. Those that grabbed a diet coke can were overweight or obese. Those that grabbed bottled water were thin or normal weight. No exceptions.
.... there has to be something to this. Taste buds, gut flora, craving for sweets? Or simply that people that choose water have a healthier life attitude? It could take decades to find out.
Maybe they choose water to nourish their body and that thinking leads to a healthier body.
* Those that drink water have always been normal body weight.
Science will tell us iun a few decades.... WHY? Could it be that those that cannot handle drinking even one glass of water have a tastebud issue?21 -
Well, I've dropped about 1/3 of my bodyweight drinking 1-2 litres of diet cola daily...9
-
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »I went to a family reunion. Those that grabbed a diet coke can were overweight or obese. Those that grabbed bottled water were thin or normal weight. No exceptions.
.... there has to be something to this. Taste buds, gut flora, craving for sweets? Or simply that people that choose water have a healthier life attitude? It could take decades to find out.
Maybe they choose water to nourish their body and that thinking leads to a healthier body.
* Those that drink water have always been normal body weight.
Science will tell us iun a few decades.... WHY? Could it be that those that cannot handle drinking even one glass of water have a tastebud issue?
Figure this one out. Most of my family drinks a full sugar soda or two, then water. Most of us are healthy weight.7 -
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »I went to a family reunion. Those that grabbed a diet coke can were overweight or obese. Those that grabbed bottled water were thin or normal weight. No exceptions.
.... there has to be something to this. Taste buds, gut flora, craving for sweets? Or simply that people that choose water have a healthier life attitude? It could take decades to find out.
Maybe they choose water to nourish their body and that thinking leads to a healthier body.
* Those that drink water have always been normal body weight.
Science will tell us iun a few decades.... WHY? Could it be that those that cannot handle drinking even one glass of water have a tastebud issue?
I drink several glasses of plain water per day, in addition to a diet soda, or a beer, wine, tea and coffee. When I'm at a special event, I tend to grab a soda or a beer. Not for any deep hidden scientific reasons, just because I associate them with treats or fun times. I have never been obese or technically overweight. I'm not going to question the science based on what you happened to observe in the time you were watching at one family reunion. You can't extrapolate to people's every day lives based on what they do at a party.11 -
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »I went to a family reunion. Those that grabbed a diet coke can were overweight or obese. Those that grabbed bottled water were thin or normal weight. No exceptions.
.... there has to be something to this. Taste buds, gut flora, craving for sweets? Or simply that people that choose water have a healthier life attitude? It could take decades to find out.
Maybe they choose water to nourish their body and that thinking leads to a healthier body.
* Those that drink water have always been normal body weight.
Science will tell us iun a few decades.... WHY? Could it be that those that cannot handle drinking even one glass of water have a tastebud issue?
Probably the same reason plant based eaters are revered at one of the healthiest populations. Because those people tend to also focus on nutrition and exercise more often than those who dont follow the lifestyle.
People who try to get healthy, often tend to assign foods as good or bad.... soda often being in the latter. With MFP, its a bit different as we tend to take a more quantifiable approach and we tend to recognize or follow some of the leading scientist in the field, rather than Netflix.10 -
I am talking about people that never drink water. They hate it. I myself will drink a diet coke from time to time.0
-
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »I am talking about people that never drink water. They hate it. I myself will drink a diet coke from time to time.
Yea. I just answered that. Those that hate water tend to be those who also make worse food choses (i.e., getting a diet soda, so you can supersize that bic mac meal).
5 -
Tucson_Traveler wrote: »Therefore, I see your question not so much as "Do artificial sweeteners cause diabetes and weight gain?". I see your question as "Do I want to take the chance that artificial sweeteners cause diabetes and weight gain?" That is a question only you can answer.
From a scientific standpoint that's like saying "Do I want to take a chance today that a refrigerator will drop out of the sky and land on me If I go outside today?"
Unless someone's holding the fridge over your door, that chance is zilch.22 -
Tucson_Traveler wrote: »Therefore, I see your question not so much as "Do artificial sweeteners cause diabetes and weight gain?". I see your question as "Do I want to take the chance that artificial sweeteners cause diabetes and weight gain?" That is a question only you can answer.
From a scientific standpoint that's like saying "Do I want to take a chance today that a refrigerator will drop out of the sky and land on me If I go outside today?"
Unless someone's holding the fridge over your door, that chance is zilch.
@tomteboda
It's not the falling refrigerators we should worry about......
“Beware of the deadly donkey,
falling from the sky,
you can choose the way you live, my friend,
but not the way you die.”
― Edward Monkton14 -
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »I went to a family reunion. Those that grabbed a diet coke can were overweight or obese. Those that grabbed bottled water were thin or normal weight. No exceptions.
.... there has to be something to this. Taste buds, gut flora, craving for sweets? Or simply that people that choose water have a healthier life attitude? It could take decades to find out.
Maybe they choose water to nourish their body and that thinking leads to a healthier body.
* Those that drink water have always been normal body weight.
Science will tell us iun a few decades.... WHY? Could it be that those that cannot handle drinking even one glass of water have a tastebud issue?
And I've been drinking diet soda for well over 25 years now. The only drawback................paying a CRV (California Redemption value) on every can or bottled liquid. Irritating.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
8 -
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »I went to a family reunion. Those that grabbed a diet coke can were overweight or obese. Those that grabbed bottled water were thin or normal weight. No exceptions.
.... there has to be something to this. Taste buds, gut flora, craving for sweets? Or simply that people that choose water have a healthier life attitude? It could take decades to find out.
Maybe they choose water to nourish their body and that thinking leads to a healthier body.
* Those that drink water have always been normal body weight.
Science will tell us iun a few decades.... WHY? Could it be that those that cannot handle drinking even one glass of water have a tastebud issue?
Go hang out with a bunch of anorexics. They drink a lot of diet pop. I know tons of normal and underweight people who drink diet pop.5 -
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »I went to a family reunion. Those that grabbed a diet coke can were overweight or obese. Those that grabbed bottled water were thin or normal weight. No exceptions.
.... there has to be something to this. Taste buds, gut flora, craving for sweets? Or simply that people that choose water have a healthier life attitude? It could take decades to find out.
Maybe they choose water to nourish their body and that thinking leads to a healthier body.
* Those that drink water have always been normal body weight.
Science will tell us iun a few decades.... WHY? Could it be that those that cannot handle drinking even one glass of water have a tastebud issue?
so by this line of reasoning if everyone at the party who wore a red shirt was fat, red shirts makes people fat?9 -
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »I am talking about people that never drink water. They hate it. I myself will drink a diet coke from time to time.
If I saw someone drinking a diet soda at a family reunion, I wouldn't assume that they hate water or never drink it. Maybe they just like having diet soda at parties?10 -
Muscleflex79 wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »I went to a family reunion. Those that grabbed a diet coke can were overweight or obese. Those that grabbed bottled water were thin or normal weight. No exceptions.
.... there has to be something to this. Taste buds, gut flora, craving for sweets? Or simply that people that choose water have a healthier life attitude? It could take decades to find out.
Maybe they choose water to nourish their body and that thinking leads to a healthier body.
* Those that drink water have always been normal body weight.
Science will tell us iun a few decades.... WHY? Could it be that those that cannot handle drinking even one glass of water have a tastebud issue?
so by this line of reasoning if everyone at the party who wore a red shirt was fat, red shirts makes people fat?
OMG you didn't know that about red shirts?! (<-humor warning, just in case).
6
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
- 424 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