Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Diet Soda Court Ruling

pinuplove
pinuplove Posts: 12,871 Member
in Debate Club
Not really a debate, but knowing how divisive opinions on diet soda can be, dropping this here:

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/expecting-weight-loss-drinking-diet-soda-unreasonable-federal/story?id=68031037
Having "diet" on soft drinks doesn't mean you will lose weight, a court ruled.

It's good to see common sense isn't completely dead.
«1

Replies

  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,871 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    pinuplove wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tbright1965 wrote: »
    There go my plans to sue over Thin Mints...

    . . . and my promising Wheat Thins law suit.

    And that *kitten* Skinny Cow.

    Ya know, I weighed the pros and cons first. I mean, I'll be skinny, but I'll be a cow. Now i feel dumb.

    If I'm going to be a cow, I'd better at least be a skinny one!

    (Their ice cream sandwiches actually weren't bad, as I recall. This was long before the influx of alternative ice cream choices we have now. Back in my WW days.)
  • The_Enginerd
    The_Enginerd Posts: 3,982 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    This story cracked me up.

    I'd like to say it's just a play for money and that nobody could be so dumb as to think that simply drinking diet soda burns calories . . . but man, we've got some dumb people in this country.

    This lawsuit ties into the correlational studies that diet soda drinking doesn't lead to weight loss. But well controlled studies indicate that lack of weight loss has nothing to do with any disruption to metabolism and everything to do with behavioral changes that overcompensate the calories lost from the diet drink with extra calories from food.
  • SuzySunshine99
    SuzySunshine99 Posts: 2,989 Member
    Yoo meen I'va been wazting my time drinking all dese skinny magaritas!?!?
    Well of allllll the son of a gunnn....zzzzzzz.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    edited January 2020
    <removed - not appropriate in hindsight>
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,871 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Good grief, it's like suing McDs for having hot coffee.

    You could claim the hot coffee didn't make you hotter than you already are.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    edited January 2020
    SuzySunshine99 wrote: »
    Yoo meen I'va been wazting my time drinking all dese skinny magaritas!?!?
    Well of allllll the son of a gunnn....zzzzzzz.

    But I bet you love us! (at least until the margaritas wear off)
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,871 Member
    edited January 2020
    MikePTY wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Good grief, it's like suing McDs for having hot coffee.

    Despite it's folk lore status, the McDonald's coffee case was actually legit.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-mcdonalds-coffee-case_b_14002362

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck

    I actually read about that a while back. Her injuries were horrifying. I mean there's hot, and then there's HOT. I didn't immediately connect Nutty's comment to that case.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    MikePTY wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Good grief, it's like suing McDs for having hot coffee.

    Despite it's folk lore status, the McDonald's coffee case was actually legit.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-mcdonalds-coffee-case_b_14002362

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck

    TLDR: McDonald's was producing coffee at far higher temperature than one would normally consume coffee, knew for a decade of hundreds of reports of serious burns from their coffee, and didn't make any effort to either mitigate it or inform the public. The coffee was hot enough to scald human flesh and the woman who got burned nearly died from her injuries.

    Thank you for this. I have only heard bits about the case, and not actually looked it up. That's horrifying.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    pinuplove wrote: »
    It's good to see common sense isn't completely dead.

    Loving your optimism!
    :smiley:
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,871 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    pinuplove wrote: »
    It's good to see common sense isn't completely dead.

    Loving your optimism!
    :smiley:

    I am a right little ray of sunshine!
  • Sunshine_And_Sand
    Sunshine_And_Sand Posts: 1,320 Member
    It’s sad that a case like this even went to court in the first place.
    Reminds me of the guy back several years ago who ate fast food for every meal and then sued Burger King, McDonalds, and Wendy’s after his third heart attack. He claimed the fast food places didn’t do an adequate job of letting people know their food isn’t healthy.
  • maureenkhilde
    maureenkhilde Posts: 849 Member
    So the Thinsters cookies are out too. And they even promised no fake anything in them. All good food like real sugar, real butter, no preservatives and so on. Very tasty. but I never not even for a nano second thought gee if I eat these they will help with weight loss.
    The article about the diet soda, incredible...
  • maureenkhilde
    maureenkhilde Posts: 849 Member
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    This story cracked me up.

    I'd like to say it's just a play for money and that nobody could be so dumb as to think that simply drinking diet soda burns calories . . . but man, we've got some dumb people in this country.

    Some people think that simply eating keto regardless of calories is enough to lose weight, so yeah...

    So do you really think lots of people fall in this category really?
    I do low carb, not Keto but pretty low carb. And rule number 1 is what is the calorie total for the day. I am always creating dinners and so on. And I never make anything without building in a recipe calculator which means yes I need to know carbs, fats, fibers, proteins and total calories. It is a pet peeve of mine that the local newspaper will put in what they say is a healthy recipe and never put in calories or any other nutrition information about it.
  • hesn92
    hesn92 Posts: 5,966 Member
    :D
  • ccrdragon
    ccrdragon Posts: 3,374 Member
    pinuplove wrote: »
    Not really a debate, but knowing how divisive opinions on diet soda can be, dropping this here:

    https://abcnews.go.com/Health/expecting-weight-loss-drinking-diet-soda-unreasonable-federal/story?id=68031037
    Having "diet" on soft drinks doesn't mean you will lose weight, a court ruled.

    It's good to see common sense isn't completely dead.

    Did you see that this was actually her second try at this? She had previously sued Coca-Cola for the same reason (and got the same result).
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited January 2020
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    maureenkhilde wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    This story cracked me up.

    I'd like to say it's just a play for money and that nobody could be so dumb as to think that simply drinking diet soda burns calories . . . but man, we've got some dumb people in this country.

    Some people think that simply eating keto regardless of calories is enough to lose weight, so yeah...

    So do you really think lots of people fall in this category really?

    I do low carb, not Keto but pretty low carb. And rule number 1 is what is the calorie total for the day. I am always creating dinners and so on. And I never make anything without building in a recipe calculator which means yes I need to know carbs, fats, fibers, proteins and total calories. It is a pet peeve of mine that the local newspaper will put in what they say is a healthy recipe and never put in calories or any other nutrition information about it.

    Yeah, I think a really large number of people fall in that category. It's not unique to keto, a lot of people just don't want to believe calories are what matter no matter what type of diet they are doing. ("Clean eaters" often are in this category, and McDougall seems to be a WFPB person in that category, I think, although I'd have to read more of him to be certain.

    Re keto, even those who should know better, like Taubes and some others in the keto-activist camp, still are pushing the theory that carbs and not calories are what's relevant for weight.

    I think your approach is perfectly sensible and, IME, it is also the mainstream one from low carbers and keto-ers on MFP, but on some other sites that is not true. (When I was experimenting with keto I was exploring commentary from keto-fans on the net, and found a lot of people insisting calories did not matter.)

    It's not McDougall-specific, but I have encountered WFPB people who insist that it's impossible to be an unhealthy weight if you do WFPB "right." Sometimes this is a belief that a WFPB diet will automatically make you a successful intuitive eater (that is, you will automatically consume the right number of calories to support your ideal body weight), but I've also met some people who are seeming to argue that your body cannot store excess calories unless you're eating incorrectly . . . which is pretty much a denial that calories matter.

    McDougall is, in my readings, pretty cagey about what he's actually claiming for his program. He writes about how he encourages "unrestricted eating" and that his program participants never have a "moment of hunger," but will lose 3.5 pounds a week while eating "to the full satisfaction of their natural and healthy appetite." He writes that this is because the foods allowed on his plan satisfy the "hunger drive." He also claims that exercise encourages your brain to ask your body for less food (while one is carrying extra weight), which further increases the effectiveness of his program. So I would classify him as someone who argues that calories do matter, but that we can "hack" the system so we can ignore them if we eliminate the right foods (which I don't think is an effective approach for the average person seeking a sustainable approach to weight management, but of course some individuals do have successful with methods like this).

    What I was thinking of is something of his I read where he seems to argue that because it's so preferred for the body to store fat as fat that if you eat low-enough fat and high starch that it really won't matter how much you eat. It seemed like the reverse of the Taubes et al. argument when I read it. (But I am not a McDougall expert.)
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,871 Member
    edited January 2020
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    pinuplove wrote: »
    Not really a debate, but knowing how divisive opinions on diet soda can be, dropping this here:

    https://abcnews.go.com/Health/expecting-weight-loss-drinking-diet-soda-unreasonable-federal/story?id=68031037
    Having "diet" on soft drinks doesn't mean you will lose weight, a court ruled.

    It's good to see common sense isn't completely dead.

    Did you see that this was actually her second try at this? She had previously sued Coca-Cola for the same reason (and got the same result).

    I saw the part about the previous lawsuit but failed to internalize that it was brought by the same person *caught skimming* Definitely feels like a money grab.

    She needs a new hobby.

Categories