New study - diet soda better than water for weight loss

2»

Replies

  • snazzyjazzy21
    snazzyjazzy21 Posts: 1,298 Member
    I don't drink them. They can't be good for you!

    Why not?
  • TadaGanIarracht
    TadaGanIarracht Posts: 2,615 Member
    Mmm, Diet Coke.

    So, what's the topic here?
  • wheird
    wheird Posts: 7,963 Member
    I am ready to believe this.
  • mfp2014mfp
    mfp2014mfp Posts: 689 Member
    A study funded by me* suggests you will all live much happier lives if you send me your candy, cakes and lollies.

    * Study has a sample size of one.

    :flowerforyou:
  • TadaGanIarracht
    TadaGanIarracht Posts: 2,615 Member
    I know plenty who drink diet beverages and have lost weight. More importantly, they have kept it off. They also lived happy, healthy, full lives.
  • albertabeefy
    albertabeefy Posts: 1,169 Member
    I've read the study - because I enjoy that sort of thing. (Heck, It's a huge part of my job and I still enjoy it ... Yeah, I'm odd...)

    FYI neither of the groups was tracking calories, nor was there any attempt made by the researchers at ensuring similar caloric deficits among both groups.

    As such, for whatever reason, the group drinking diet soda had an overall greater caloric deficit than the other group. Much like the majority of dieters that restrict any other food group (without any real compelling reason to do so), those that were required to "give up" diet soda were less successful than those that weren't.

    This doesn't mean diet soda makes you lose weight faster than water, it may mean that restricting food groups unnecessarily makes you less-successful at weight-loss.

    BTW the study didn't actually conclude diet soda was superior for weight loss ... the study simply concluded water wasn't superior to diet soda.
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    I like how so many of you are ready to dismiss the study (or accept it, for that matter),

    Full-text here:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20737/full
  • mfp2014mfp
    mfp2014mfp Posts: 689 Member
    I like how so many of you are ready to dismiss the study (or accept it, for that matter),

    Full-text here:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20737/full

    All I need to read is right here:
    Funding Agencies: The study was fully funded by The American Beverage Association.
    Disclosure: JCP, JOH received consulting fees from The Coca-Cola Company outside of the submitted work. The remaining co-authors declared no conflict of interest.
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    I've read the study - because I enjoy that sort of thing. (Heck, It's a huge part of my job and I still enjoy it ... Yeah, I'm odd...)

    FYI neither of the groups was tracking calories, nor was there any attempt made by the researchers at ensuring similar caloric deficits among both groups.

    As such, for whatever reason, the group drinking diet soda had an overall greater caloric deficit than the other group. Much like the majority of dieters that restrict any other food group (without any real compelling reason to do so), those that were required to "give up" diet soda were less successful than those that weren't.

    This doesn't mean diet soda makes you lose weight faster than water, it means restricting food groups unnecessarily makes you less-successful at weight-loss.

    That was my take as well. However, there may be other factors at play. For example, many diet sodas contain caffeine, which is a mild thermogenic and (perhaps more importantly) anorectic. The participants in this study reported less hunger in the diet soda group than the water group, and the caffeine quite possibly played a role.
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    I like how so many of you are ready to dismiss the study (or accept it, for that matter),

    Full-text here:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20737/full

    All I need to read is right here:
    Funding Agencies: The study was fully funded by The American Beverage Association.
    Disclosure: JCP, JOH received consulting fees from The Coca-Cola Company outside of the submitted work. The remaining co-authors declared no conflict of interest.

    Then you don't understand how to evaluate scientific literature. Funding source can sometimes introduce bias, so it is a valid reason to scrutinize the methodology and conclusions, but not to dismiss the study outright.
  • wheird
    wheird Posts: 7,963 Member
    I like how so many of you are ready to dismiss the study (or accept it, for that matter),

    Full-text here:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20737/full

    Thanks man!!!


    My issue is that the groups seemed to be self-monitoring their intake.

    That being said, I can readily believe the results.
  • albertabeefy
    albertabeefy Posts: 1,169 Member
    That was my take as well. However, there may be other factors at play. For example, many diet sodas contain caffeine, which is a mild thermogenic and (perhaps more importantly) anorectic. The participants in this study reported less hunger in the diet soda group than the water group, and the caffeine quite possibly played a role.
    ... don't forget that caffeine is also a diuretic ...

    Yes, there's really not enough data provided to make any conclusion on diet drinks vs. water. In that regard it's a very poor design. It would have been easy to design an iso-caloric study with similar caffeine intakes where one group had diet drinks and the other not ... That would give the headlines more validity . . .

    What's really shocking is you and I agreeing. :flowerforyou:
  • mfp2014mfp
    mfp2014mfp Posts: 689 Member
    I like how so many of you are ready to dismiss the study (or accept it, for that matter),

    Full-text here:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20737/full

    All I need to read is right here:
    Funding Agencies: The study was fully funded by The American Beverage Association.
    Disclosure: JCP, JOH received consulting fees from The Coca-Cola Company outside of the submitted work. The remaining co-authors declared no conflict of interest.

    Then you don't understand how to evaluate scientific literature. Funding source can sometimes introduce bias, so it is a valid reason to scrutinize the methodology and conclusions, but not to dismiss the study outright.

    Maybe I don't know how to evaluate scientific literature, or maybe I have enough common sense to 1. reach a conclusion of my own on the subjuct and 2. realise that having a commercial interest can inluence the bias heavilly enough to the point where I feel that it wastes my time :flowerforyou: Just my humble opion.
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    That was my take as well. However, there may be other factors at play. For example, many diet sodas contain caffeine, which is a mild thermogenic and (perhaps more importantly) anorectic. The participants in this study reported less hunger in the diet soda group than the water group, and the caffeine quite possibly played a role.
    ... don't forget that caffeine is also a diuretic ...

    Yes, there's really not enough data provided to make any conclusion on diet drinks vs. water. In that regard it's a very poor design. It would have been easy to design an iso-caloric study with similar caffeine intakes where one group had diet drinks and the other not ... That would give the headlines more validity . . .

    What's really shocking is you and I agreeing. :flowerforyou:

    I don't think an isocaloric study is needed, or even helpful in this case. A large part of weight loss is behavioral. I would've liked to see a detailed analysis of their food logs. Did the diet soda group adhere to their diets better? If so, it would be a severe blow to the argument that "artificial sweeteners make you crave sweets".
  • SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish
    SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish Posts: 831 Member
    I've read the study - because I enjoy that sort of thing. (Heck, It's a huge part of my job and I still enjoy it ... Yeah, I'm odd...)

    FYI neither of the groups was tracking calories, nor was there any attempt made by the researchers at ensuring similar caloric deficits among both groups.

    As such, for whatever reason, the group drinking diet soda had an overall greater caloric deficit than the other group. Much like the majority of dieters that restrict any other food group (without any real compelling reason to do so), those that were required to "give up" diet soda were less successful than those that weren't.

    This doesn't mean diet soda makes you lose weight faster than water, it may mean that restricting food groups unnecessarily makes you less-successful at weight-loss.

    BTW the study didn't actually conclude diet soda was superior for weight loss ... the study simply concluded water wasn't superior to diet soda.

    ^^ Yup, exactly. But of course the reporters reporting on it always come to their own conclusion, rather than what the study really says, and people pass on the wrong info... Lots of issues with that study besides not saying what people so far seem to think it does...

    Since both water and soda have no calories, it may be that soda is giving one a sense of being fuller. Why wasn't just carbonated water and flavored carbonated water also included? This easily could give a more full and/or more satisfied feeling as well. Liquids consumed and food consumed were not strictly tracked for each group for an equal baseline, so its also easy to see that drinking water and soda is more filling than just water, and the difference could easily be a bit more food intake per meal. Also, recent studies showed people who do consume artificial sweeteners tend to regain weight later after losing, and have higher BMIs, is this effect reversed later on in time and how much further in time?
  • Carley
    Carley Posts: 88
    I had to chuckle when I read who funded the study. I'm not buying it.

    Me either. What a load of rubbish.
  • amblight
    amblight Posts: 350 Member
    The positive effects I see of water are:

    It helps keep your physically full.

    It helps to keep your hydrated.

    It's good for us rest-less people who'd prefer to stuff something in our face at any given time.

    It does it all at zero calories.


    I see the same positive effects of diet soda (well, it's usually 2 calories or something, but ya know..), with the added bonus of being delicious, different mouth-feel etc. I think it can deffinitely help someone who dreads having to stick with water or salads for a long time - it can feel like a bit of a cheat without actually being it.

    I'm allll for it! Now, if it just wasn't so terrible for your teeth, I'd drink diet soda from morning to night, and be a lot happier I'd bet. Anyone who can get on that?
  • amblight
    amblight Posts: 350 Member
    I've read the study - because I enjoy that sort of thing. (Heck, It's a huge part of my job and I still enjoy it ... Yeah, I'm odd...)

    FYI neither of the groups was tracking calories, nor was there any attempt made by the researchers at ensuring similar caloric deficits among both groups.

    As such, for whatever reason, the group drinking diet soda had an overall greater caloric deficit than the other group. Much like the majority of dieters that restrict any other food group (without any real compelling reason to do so), those that were required to "give up" diet soda were less successful than those that weren't.

    This doesn't mean diet soda makes you lose weight faster than water, it may mean that restricting food groups unnecessarily makes you less-successful at weight-loss.

    BTW the study didn't actually conclude diet soda was superior for weight loss ... the study simply concluded water wasn't superior to diet soda.

    QFT
  • Slacker16
    Slacker16 Posts: 1,184 Member
    tbuhKxl.gif
    I've read the study - because I enjoy that sort of thing. (Heck, It's a huge part of my job and I still enjoy it ... Yeah, I'm odd...)

    FYI neither of the groups was tracking calories, nor was there any attempt made by the researchers at ensuring similar caloric deficits among both groups.

    As such, for whatever reason, the group drinking diet soda had an overall greater caloric deficit than the other group. Much like the majority of dieters that restrict any other food group (without any real compelling reason to do so), those that were required to "give up" diet soda were less successful than those that weren't.

    This doesn't mean diet soda makes you lose weight faster than water, it may mean that restricting food groups unnecessarily makes you less-successful at weight-loss.

    BTW the study didn't actually conclude diet soda was superior for weight loss ... the study simply concluded water wasn't superior to diet soda.
    Diet soda is a food group?

    I scanned through the article. It wouldn't have made sense to insure both groups had equal caloric intakes. Swapping out one zero-calorie beverage for another zero-calorie beverage wouldn't make much of a difference in that case. Aside from which, neither was "more" restricted. Both (AFAICT) could drink regular soda and water.

    Overall, since they focused on behavioural dieting, it seems their study aimed at seeing whether diet soda influenced feelings of hunger and intuitive diet adherence, and in that context seems relevant. I would have liked them to also have a third group that would be required to drink a certain amount of non-diet soda each day.
  • albertabeefy
    albertabeefy Posts: 1,169 Member
    Diet soda is a food group?
    LOL, I guess I should have referred to it as a food item - I used the term "food group" because it's well-established when people restrict food items/groups (with no compelling medical reason to do so), they tend to not do as well.
    I scanned through the article. It wouldn't have made sense to insure both groups had equal caloric intakes.
    Not similar intake, but similar deficits.
    Swapping out one zero-calorie beverage for another zero-calorie beverage wouldn't make much of a difference in that case. Aside from which, neither was "more" restricted. Both (AFAICT) could drink regular soda and water.
    But these were overweight people to begin with, who were given advice on weight-loss. Though the water-only group was not advised to restrict sugared-drinks, it's extremely likely (being overweight participants in a weight-loss study) that they believed they should do so. As such, they were certainly restricted in food items. They also could not ADD sugar-free sweeteners to their beverages - be it coffee, tea, lemonade, etc. So if they wanted anything sweetened, their only option was caloric-sweeteners.

    Yes, they were definitely MORE restricted.
    Overall, since they focused on behavioural dieting, it seems their study aimed at seeing whether diet soda influenced feelings of hunger and intuitive diet adherence, and in that context seems relevant. I would have liked them to also have a third group that would be required to drink a certain amount of non-diet soda each day.
    If you're used to being able to drink a Diet Coke with friends, and now can only drink water or full-sugar coke, you're likely to occasionally choose the sugared coke at least sometimes, especially if you prefer it's taste. This is as-result of a restriction.

    If you're used to some kind of sweetener in your coffee or tea, and can't have a sugar-free version, it's unlikely you'll drink it without. Again, you're now limited to adding sugar. Again, as-result of a restriction.

    To suggest that the water-only group wasn't restricted is rubbish. The restriction is WHY they would have less-intuitive adherence and more cravings.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,030 Member
    I'm sure there will be one to trump it, but in my case drinking diet soda (for over 25 years) has helped keep my sweet tooth at bay. Of course I do drink a respectable amount of water a day too. I wouldn't put all my fluid intake on just diet soda.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Categories