diet soda or no diet soda
Options
Replies
-
However the amount of sodium in some diet soda's could effect your weight loss if you retain water from to much sodium intake...
Which sodas are those? I'm not being snarky. I've just never seen a soda with what I'd consider "high" sodium. The Diet Pespi in front of me has 35mg of sodium per 12oz can, which is about the same amount of sodium as in three raw baby carrots. On the other hand, a sports drink like Gatorade has about 110mg per 8oz serving.0 -
I have to admit that I drink it from time to time but the artificial sweetners in it are bad for you and they make me dizzy after a while and make my stomache hurt :P My doc told me they aren't great for you but they won't hurt you unless you drink like 20 cans a day.
~Always looking for more MFP friends
0 -
[/quote]
And to counter.A little information regarding aspartame. There are too many questions about the safety of Aspartame, I wouldn't drink diet sodas. But, once in awhile to have a diet soda is fine. Do your own research so you can make your own decision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvFRLIjOLOU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F66P277Eyac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGEp2YT7Bjg
More than 500 studies have been done on Aspartame and found it same to use.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Where is her proof? She didn't show anything? Even if it's safe or not, too much controversy. In my opinion, I would stay away from it. However, if you need a fix every so often, it's fine or drink regular soda.0 -
Dude did you watch it? Do I really have to point it out? Pause at :34................................see the CRITICAL REVIEWS IN TOXICOLOGY? Here's the part of the review:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGEp2YT7Bjg
Where is her proof? She didn't show anything? Even if it's safe or not, too much controversy. In my opinion, I would stay away from it. However, if you need a fix every so often, it's fine or drink regular soda.October 24, 2007 — A large-scale review reports there is no evidence that the nonnutritive sweetener aspartame is associated with neurological damage, cancer, or other health problems in humans.
Published in the September issue of Critical Reviews in Toxicology, the 100-page report includes a review of more than 500 studies, including toxicological, clinical, and epidemiological research dating from preclinical work during the 1970s to the latest studies on the high-intensity sweetener.
Led by Bernadene Magnuson, PhD, from the University of Maryland in College Park, an international, independent expert panel from 10 universities and medical schools was commissioned to investigate the safety of the sweetener, which is used in more than 6000 products in 90 countries.
"We found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic or neurotoxic or has any other adverse effects when consumed even at very high levels," Dr. Magnuson told Medscape Neurology & Neurosurgery.
You can say your opinion, but that doesn't trump actual scientific evidence. And what about that ban in Japan you spoke of? How is Ajinomoto ( the largest manufacturer of aspartame) able to manufacture it in Japan if it's banned?
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
What a feisty subject! LOL!0
-
Dude did you watch it? Do I really have to point it out? Pause at :34................................see the CRITICAL REVIEWS IN TOXICOLOGY? Here's the part of the review:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGEp2YT7Bjg
Where is her proof? She didn't show anything? Even if it's safe or not, too much controversy. In my opinion, I would stay away from it. However, if you need a fix every so often, it's fine or drink regular soda.October 24, 2007 — A large-scale review reports there is no evidence that the nonnutritive sweetener aspartame is associated with neurological damage, cancer, or other health problems in humans.
Published in the September issue of Critical Reviews in Toxicology, the 100-page report includes a review of more than 500 studies, including toxicological, clinical, and epidemiological research dating from preclinical work during the 1970s to the latest studies on the high-intensity sweetener.
Led by Bernadene Magnuson, PhD, from the University of Maryland in College Park, an international, independent expert panel from 10 universities and medical schools was commissioned to investigate the safety of the sweetener, which is used in more than 6000 products in 90 countries.
"We found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic or neurotoxic or has any other adverse effects when consumed even at very high levels," Dr. Magnuson told Medscape Neurology & Neurosurgery.
You can say your opinion, but that doesn't trump actual scientific evidence. And what about that ban in Japan you spoke of? How is Ajinomoto ( the largest manufacturer of aspartame) able to manufacture it in Japan if it's banned?
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Unfortunately, the artificial sweetner business is huge and altho it is conspiracy theory, I am one of those who believes the FDA can and has been paid off in the past, (by Lobbyists, those companies/reps who financially support the research, etc), and if they have been that would make all "scientific studies" unrealiable and potentially even invalid. Scientists will draw whatever conclusions and skew data to support the non-toxic/non-cancerous claims and studies if enough money is thrown at it.
C'mon we all know how big business is and how corruptable people can be (yes, pessimistic). Look at all the drugs that went to market WITH FDA APPROVAL (those had studies showing minimum harm, right>?) that were killing people within months of taking them. I dont trust that the FDA makes our health it's first priority. But it is YOUR choice what you put in your body, I just wish they would tell us the truth about products, since it's their damn job to!
I personally dont drink them because 1 diet soda will give me a killer headache for 2 days (feels like being hit with a bat to the back of the head). But if they dont affect you, feel free in moderation (as in everything else).0 -
1 to 5 studies I could see, but 500? How are 500 studies, with at least half of them done independently and the under peer review, coming up with the same data? What I would like to see is data for actual deaths attributed to artificial sweetners since there are many people who tout it will kill you. That would good data to see.Unfortunately, the artificial sweetner business is huge and altho it is conspiracy theory, I am one on those who believes the FDA can and has been paid off in the past, (by Lobbyists, those companies/reps who financially support the research, etc), and if they have been that would make making all "scientific studies" unrealiable and potentially even invalid. Scientists will draw whatever conclusions and skew data to support the non-toxic/non-cancerous claims and studies if enough money is thrown at it.
C'mon we all know how big business is and how corruptable people can be (yes, pessimistic). Look at all the drugs that went to market WITH FDA APPROVAL (those had studies showing minimum harm, right>?) that were killing people within months of taking them. I dont trust that the FDA makes our health it's first priority. But it is YOUR choice what you put in your body, I just wish they would tell us the truth about products, since it's their damn job to!
I personally dont drink them because 1 diet soda will give me a killer headache for 2 days (feels like being hit with a bat to the back of the head). But if they dont affect you, feel free in moderation (as in everything else).
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Right, but you wont see that because as Americans we eat so horribly and unnaturally it would be impossible to do a valid study on. AND even if we did who would FUND that research. Sure as hell wont be the artificial sweetner companies. And our government can't even pay for insurance and preventative health for it's own people much less pay for studies that would shut down it's primary source of funding.
Also, who s paying for the independent reviews. I can guarantee it's those with financial interests in the sweetner business or other related companies/investors that are depending on those positive studies.0 -
Dude did you watch it? Do I really have to point it out? Pause at :34................................see the CRITICAL REVIEWS IN TOXICOLOGY? Here's the part of the review:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGEp2YT7Bjg
Where is her proof? She didn't show anything? Even if it's safe or not, too much controversy. In my opinion, I would stay away from it. However, if you need a fix every so often, it's fine or drink regular soda.October 24, 2007 — A large-scale review reports there is no evidence that the nonnutritive sweetener aspartame is associated with neurological damage, cancer, or other health problems in humans.
Published in the September issue of Critical Reviews in Toxicology, the 100-page report includes a review of more than 500 studies, including toxicological, clinical, and epidemiological research dating from preclinical work during the 1970s to the latest studies on the high-intensity sweetener.
Led by Bernadene Magnuson, PhD, from the University of Maryland in College Park, an international, independent expert panel from 10 universities and medical schools was commissioned to investigate the safety of the sweetener, which is used in more than 6000 products in 90 countries.
"We found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic or neurotoxic or has any other adverse effects when consumed even at very high levels," Dr. Magnuson told Medscape Neurology & Neurosurgery.
You can say your opinion, but that doesn't trump actual scientific evidence. And what about that ban in Japan you spoke of? How is Ajinomoto ( the largest manufacturer of aspartame) able to manufacture it in Japan if it's banned?
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Unfortunately, the artificial sweetner business is huge and altho it is conspiracy theory, I am one of those who believes the FDA can and has been paid off in the past, (by Lobbyists, those companies/reps who financially support the research, etc), and if they have been that would make all "scientific studies" unrealiable and potentially even invalid. Scientists will draw whatever conclusions and skew data to support the non-toxic/non-cancerous claims and studies if enough money is thrown at it.
C'mon we all know how big business is and how corruptable people can be (yes, pessimistic). Look at all the drugs that went to market WITH FDA APPROVAL (those had studies showing minimum harm, right>?) that were killing people within months of taking them. I dont trust that the FDA makes our health it's first priority. But it is YOUR choice what you put in your body, I just wish they would tell us the truth about products, since it's their damn job to!
I personally dont drink them because 1 diet soda will give me a killer headache for 2 days (feels like being hit with a bat to the back of the head). But if they dont affect you, feel free in moderation (as in everything else).
Agree0 -
no diet soda- if you want a soda, drink a regular one (just do it in moderation!) aspartame IS bad for your body. it's a foreign "sugar" that the body doesn't recognize and can end up depositing around various parts of your body, not to mention it breaks down into formaldehyde!
(for those who might not know what formaldehyde is, it's used to preserve things [such as the dead frogs you dissect in high school])
why you would want to put that in your body, i have no idea.0 -
1 to 5 studies I could see, but 500? How are 500 studies, with at least half of them done independently and the under peer review, coming up with the same data? What I would like to see is data for actual deaths attributed to artificial sweetners since there are many people who tout it will kill you. That would good data to see.Unfortunately, the artificial sweetner business is huge and altho it is conspiracy theory, I am one on those who believes the FDA can and has been paid off in the past, (by Lobbyists, those companies/reps who financially support the research, etc), and if they have been that would make making all "scientific studies" unrealiable and potentially even invalid. Scientists will draw whatever conclusions and skew data to support the non-toxic/non-cancerous claims and studies if enough money is thrown at it.
C'mon we all know how big business is and how corruptable people can be (yes, pessimistic). Look at all the drugs that went to market WITH FDA APPROVAL (those had studies showing minimum harm, right>?) that were killing people within months of taking them. I dont trust that the FDA makes our health it's first priority. But it is YOUR choice what you put in your body, I just wish they would tell us the truth about products, since it's their damn job to!
I personally dont drink them because 1 diet soda will give me a killer headache for 2 days (feels like being hit with a bat to the back of the head). But if they dont affect you, feel free in moderation (as in everything else).
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
http://www.wnho.net/bernadene_magnuson_aspartame_flack.htm
http://www.wnho.net/abby_cormack_debating_bernadene_magnuson.htm
From the article:
Conflicts of Interest: The research was funded by Ajinomoto
The review was funded by Ajinomoto of Japan. Ajinomoto along with Monsanto have been the world's biggest producers and sellers of aspartame. The authors of the review had numerous, obvious conflicts of interests as described below. Yet this information was apparently not disclosed to the journal it was published in. The parent company of the journal stated in a press release that, "There were no known conflicts of interest with the sponsor or potential biases of the authors" (Informa 2007).
Gary M. Williams was the Chairman of the American Health Foundation (AHF) which was funded in part by The NutraSweet Company and other companies selling aspartame-containing products (Williams 1987). AHF Board of Directors have included representatives of PepsiCo and the National Soft Drink Association (CSPI 2003). The AHF received more than $163,000 in grants from Philip Morris. "Regarding an AHF press kit prepared by the PR firm, Ruder and Finn, William Ruder writes to Philip Morris: 'please note that we have handled it so that there is not one single mention of the problem of smoking and health.'" (CSPI 2003, Ruder 1975). In 1987, the American Health Foundation (AHF) convened a conference, Sweeteners: Health Effects where an AHF representative concluded that aspartame and other sweeteners were safe: "It is clear from the perspective of potential cancer risk that the sweeteners described in some detail in this report are safe and wholesome, and perhaps more so, than sugar. As we noted, it is our hope that this workshop will be the basis for international recognition of this fact, so that medical research effects can be directed effectively to areas more relevant to health maintenance." (Weisburger 1987)
Two of the authors, Robert Kroes and Gary M. Williams joined with Ian C. Munro, the president of the Cantox Health Sciences International corporate advocacy group, to work with Monsanto to review its herbicide, glyphosate (Williams 2000). The work of these authors, directly with Monsanto, was not disclosed in this aspartame review.
Cantox (now known as Intrinsik) specializes "in assisting clients in their efforts to develop, gain regulatory approval and market products nationally or internationally." Cantox is famous as a corporate advocacy group for whitewashing the dangers of Agent Orange, another toxic product created by Monsanto (Dominion 2007). In 2002, the president of Cantox, Ian C. Munro (see above), worked directly with NutraSweet company employees and consultants on an aspartame review where he stated: "After 30 plus years of rigorous scientific research, it is time to put questions of aspartame safety to rest. ... The continuing debate over such a 'nonissue' only serves to divert attention and the allocation of resources from more important health issues that need to be addressed." (Butchko 2002).
Bernadene Magnuson, the lead author of this review was also the Senior Scientific and Regulatory Consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International, a corporate advocacy group mentioned above (UT 2008). The president of Cantox had already called aspartame toxicity a "nonissue," yet the lead author of this review worked for Cantox!0 -
Okay, seriously, bottom line here. What redeeming quality does soda have (diet or regular) for your health, your well-being, your happiness, that you can't get in some other way from some other (less questionable, less chemical, less manufactured crap) product/person/experience? If you can name just *one* good thing that soda has to offer that can't be found in something else that is better for you and offers you more in every way, then you could have an argument for having soda. But seriously - there isn't anything it really has to offer that you can't find better in some other product. Maybe this chemical or that one in soda is causing harm to your health. Maybe the combination of the chemicals in it is causing harm. Maybe there truly is no harm being done. But how is it making you a better, healthier, happier, fitter, smarter person? Why would you settle for filling your body with stuff that merely "doesn't hurt it" when you could be filling your body instead with things that help you be better in every way? Why waste a drinking opportunity on a soda? (I've only been off soda for a few weeks, so please believe I do understand the draw... but think about it. What are you really getting from drinking it? I've come to realize that all I was really getting was, maybe, not harmed by it. That's not a great reason to drink it, when I could be getting health benefits from drinking water or even juice (in moderation)!0
-
@ kouzzzz, wasn't it proven by researchers that other types of artificial sweeteners (saccharin) had been directly linked to bladder cancer?
0 -
http://www.wnho.net/bernadene_magnuson_aspartame_flack.htm
http://www.wnho.net/abby_cormack_debating_bernadene_magnuson.htm
From the article:
Conflicts of Interest: The research was funded by Ajinomoto
The review was funded by Ajinomoto of Japan. Ajinomoto along with Monsanto have been the world's biggest producers and sellers of aspartame. The authors of the review had numerous, obvious conflicts of interests as described below. Yet this information was apparently not disclosed to the journal it was published in. The parent company of the journal stated in a press release that, "There were no known conflicts of interest with the sponsor or potential biases of the authors" (Informa 2007).
Gary M. Williams was the Chairman of the American Health Foundation (AHF) which was funded in part by The NutraSweet Company and other companies selling aspartame-containing products (Williams 1987). AHF Board of Directors have included representatives of PepsiCo and the National Soft Drink Association (CSPI 2003). The AHF received more than $163,000 in grants from Philip Morris. "Regarding an AHF press kit prepared by the PR firm, Ruder and Finn, William Ruder writes to Philip Morris: 'please note that we have handled it so that there is not one single mention of the problem of smoking and health.'" (CSPI 2003, Ruder 1975). In 1987, the American Health Foundation (AHF) convened a conference, Sweeteners: Health Effects where an AHF representative concluded that aspartame and other sweeteners were safe: "It is clear from the perspective of potential cancer risk that the sweeteners described in some detail in this report are safe and wholesome, and perhaps more so, than sugar. As we noted, it is our hope that this workshop will be the basis for international recognition of this fact, so that medical research effects can be directed effectively to areas more relevant to health maintenance." (Weisburger 1987)
Two of the authors, Robert Kroes and Gary M. Williams joined with Ian C. Munro, the president of the Cantox Health Sciences International corporate advocacy group, to work with Monsanto to review its herbicide, glyphosate (Williams 2000). The work of these authors, directly with Monsanto, was not disclosed in this aspartame review.
Cantox (now known as Intrinsik) specializes "in assisting clients in their efforts to develop, gain regulatory approval and market products nationally or internationally." Cantox is famous as a corporate advocacy group for whitewashing the dangers of Agent Orange, another toxic product created by Monsanto (Dominion 2007). In 2002, the president of Cantox, Ian C. Munro (see above), worked directly with NutraSweet company employees and consultants on an aspartame review where he stated: "After 30 plus years of rigorous scientific research, it is time to put questions of aspartame safety to rest. ... The continuing debate over such a 'nonissue' only serves to divert attention and the allocation of resources from more important health issues that need to be addressed." (Butchko 2002).
Bernadene Magnuson, the lead author of this review was also the Senior Scientific and Regulatory Consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International, a corporate advocacy group mentioned above (UT 2008). The president of Cantox had already called aspartame toxicity a "nonissue," yet the lead author of this review worked for Cantox!
YUP!! We don't know all the goings on behind the scenes of this crap. Phillip Morris! LOL! Figures they would be a name you see associated with support here. I'm sure they claim their association with this study is their supposed effort to promote health as part of thier "atonement" from the major cigarrette lawsuits, but we all know better
BTW, kouzzzz fantastic research skills and darn quick too!0 -
@ kouzzzz, wasn't it proven by researchers that other types of artificial sweeteners (saccharin) had been directly linked to bladder cancer?
In the 1970s, lab studies demonstrated a significant link between high levels of saccharin consumption and the development of urinary bladder cancer in rats. For this reason, saccharin was put on the U.S. National Toxicology Program's list of cancer-causing substances in 1981. Warning labels were placed on products containing saccharin. However, subsequent testing showed that the pathway for saccharin-linked cancer in rats does not exist in human beings, and saccharin consumption therefore doesn't trigger bladder cancer in human populations.
To much controversy here, I would stay away.0 -
.0
-
Look at all the drugs that went to market WITH FDA APPROVAL (those had studies showing minimum harm, right>?) that were killing people within months of taking them.
Yes, and those products were quickly pulled from the market, too. Look at all those pet food recalls a few years ago... when a definite link between the product and damage was established, they pulled the food from the shelves. And that's for dogs and cats. I know of other pet-related products that were taken off the market with "claims" that it was harmful, when it was really one big pharm company merging with another and having duplicate products. And if that happens with pets' medications, you can bet it happens with peoples'.
I am cynical. I don't believe the government has my best interest at heart, but I do believe that I'm a little bit more valuable to them as a living, breathing voter and taxpayer than I would be as a corpse who drank diet soda.
FWIW... what I get from soda is an enjoyment of the taste, texture and caffeine. It gives me happiness. I don't like coffee and I'm not a big fan of tea. I'm sure I could find something to replace that "buzz" I get from it, but I don't see any need to since I'm not someone who has any adverse reactions to diet soda.
Of course, if someone feels nauseous, dizzy or get a headache after drinking it, they shouldn't. I get a rash if I use Ivory Soap or Bandaid brand bandages, so I don't use them. I don't tell other people who don't have that reaction to not use them.0 -
You'd be surprised at how many independent reviews get tossed after being funded and not getting the resulted expected by the source who provided funding.Right, but you wont see that because as Americans we eat so horribly and unnaturally it would be impossible to do a valid study on. AND even if we did who would FUND that research. Sure as hell wont be the artificial sweetner companies. And our government can't even pay for insurance and preventative health for it's own people much less pay for studies that would shut down it's primary source of funding.
Also, who s paying for the independent reviews. I can guarantee it's those with financial interests in the sweetner business or other related companies/investors that are depending on those positive studies.
I will go with science since there is significant enough data and also because I personally haven't seen any negative effects from myself or any others that have consumed diet soda for extended lengths of time.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I don't doubt any company will have studies done in their favor, but there are ALWAYS studies done to counter results if the studies don't sound legitimate enough. Again, 500 studies have been done. Many by Universities and Journals of Medicine. I would doubt that everyone has been BOUGHT off.http://www.wnho.net/bernadene_magnuson_aspartame_flack.htm
http://www.wnho.net/abby_cormack_debating_bernadene_magnuson.htm
From the article:
Conflicts of Interest: The research was funded by Ajinomoto
The review was funded by Ajinomoto of Japan. Ajinomoto along with Monsanto have been the world's biggest producers and sellers of aspartame. The authors of the review had numerous, obvious conflicts of interests as described below. Yet this information was apparently not disclosed to the journal it was published in. The parent company of the journal stated in a press release that, "There were no known conflicts of interest with the sponsor or potential biases of the authors" (Informa 2007).
Gary M. Williams was the Chairman of the American Health Foundation (AHF) which was funded in part by The NutraSweet Company and other companies selling aspartame-containing products (Williams 1987). AHF Board of Directors have included representatives of PepsiCo and the National Soft Drink Association (CSPI 2003). The AHF received more than $163,000 in grants from Philip Morris. "Regarding an AHF press kit prepared by the PR firm, Ruder and Finn, William Ruder writes to Philip Morris: 'please note that we have handled it so that there is not one single mention of the problem of smoking and health.'" (CSPI 2003, Ruder 1975). In 1987, the American Health Foundation (AHF) convened a conference, Sweeteners: Health Effects where an AHF representative concluded that aspartame and other sweeteners were safe: "It is clear from the perspective of potential cancer risk that the sweeteners described in some detail in this report are safe and wholesome, and perhaps more so, than sugar. As we noted, it is our hope that this workshop will be the basis for international recognition of this fact, so that medical research effects can be directed effectively to areas more relevant to health maintenance." (Weisburger 1987)
Two of the authors, Robert Kroes and Gary M. Williams joined with Ian C. Munro, the president of the Cantox Health Sciences International corporate advocacy group, to work with Monsanto to review its herbicide, glyphosate (Williams 2000). The work of these authors, directly with Monsanto, was not disclosed in this aspartame review.
Cantox (now known as Intrinsik) specializes "in assisting clients in their efforts to develop, gain regulatory approval and market products nationally or internationally." Cantox is famous as a corporate advocacy group for whitewashing the dangers of Agent Orange, another toxic product created by Monsanto (Dominion 2007). In 2002, the president of Cantox, Ian C. Munro (see above), worked directly with NutraSweet company employees and consultants on an aspartame review where he stated: "After 30 plus years of rigorous scientific research, it is time to put questions of aspartame safety to rest. ... The continuing debate over such a 'nonissue' only serves to divert attention and the allocation of resources from more important health issues that need to be addressed." (Butchko 2002).
Bernadene Magnuson, the lead author of this review was also the Senior Scientific and Regulatory Consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International, a corporate advocacy group mentioned above (UT 2008). The president of Cantox had already called aspartame toxicity a "nonissue," yet the lead author of this review worked for Cantox!
As for Cantox, the rebuttal is an OPINION. You'd have to show some actual proof that they were compromised to show conspiracy. We're talking the health and actual lives of people so to take that lightly by a providing actual "poison" to people would have them brought up on charges.
Oh and I guess that blows your claim about aspartame being banned in Japan too. :laugh: You posting info about Ajinomoto discredits that bogus claim.
But keep trying. This is the way to learn how to debate.0 -
It's called "preference". If we were to ONLY look at benefits of everything, there would be a myriad things we could change in our lives. But people like what they like. Good or bad. Why settle for buying a Honda over a Toyota if they had the same features and the same price point?Okay, seriously, bottom line here. What redeeming quality does soda have (diet or regular) for your health, your well-being, your happiness, that you can't get in some other way from some other (less questionable, less chemical, less manufactured crap) product/person/experience? If you can name just *one* good thing that soda has to offer that can't be found in something else that is better for you and offers you more in every way, then you could have an argument for having soda. But seriously - there isn't anything it really has to offer that you can't find better in some other product. Maybe this chemical or that one in soda is causing harm to your health. Maybe the combination of the chemicals in it is causing harm. Maybe there truly is no harm being done. But how is it making you a better, healthier, happier, fitter, smarter person? Why would you settle for filling your body with stuff that merely "doesn't hurt it" when you could be filling your body instead with things that help you be better in every way? Why waste a drinking opportunity on a soda? (I've only been off soda for a few weeks, so please believe I do understand the draw... but think about it. What are you really getting from drinking it? I've come to realize that all I was really getting was, maybe, not harmed by it. That's not a great reason to drink it, when I could be getting health benefits from drinking water or even juice (in moderation)!
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions