Is diet pop REALLY that bad fro you????

I have seen plenty of research that has been replicated many times indicating that the more artificial sweeteners you use, the more likely you will develop Type II diabetes at some point and that, because the sugars are not simple but chemically altered, your kidney must work harder as well as other organs. I believe that as little as one drink a day increases your chances drastically have having diabetes and they have also shown that people are much less satisfied with low-sugar/healthier meals when they have artificial sugars on a regular basis - therefor they lean towards sweeter and fattier foods.
All this being said: Treat yourself maybe once a week if the motivation helps you to try harder to avoid those sweeter/fattier foods and keep in mind that - despite some research indicating that your chances of diabetes goes up just as much if you are skinnier versus fatter - the skinnier you are, the chances of diabetes does down.

All I know is it sure tastes BAD. I dont drink enough soda to worry about it either way but if I'm in the mood for one it will be the real thing :drinker:

yeah your above post isn't more accurate than my college textbooks... lol

I'm sorry... did you actually read them?

I'm in a research class right now... honor roll student... and what you are saying is complete BS. You are wrong!

This is from a letter signed by 255 National Academy of Sciences members, including 11 Nobel laureates. It's about climate change but includes one very important line:

"We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet."

Ah... see I don't believe in climate change either... except that I believe that it has been proven to change... because you know... it's nature and it does that. Does man have an impact... if so, then the impact is negligible. Suggesting anything beyond that falls just short of saying that man can control nature... which has been proven that he can't.

So... controlled studies have their potential for error that can be controlled and essentially minimized, but qualitative studies have a tremendous potential for bias considering that it is highly unlikely that the participants of those studies ONLY consumed aspartame products. Therefore, the potential harmful effects can potentially be linked to other perpetuating factors.

You know, I've said all this before. Honestly, if I could link you to my text book, I would. But you know, climate change really is derailing the thread, and referring to another conspiracy topic doesn't really prove your point on this topic.

He's not derailing the thread (although others certainly try to do that on a regular basis from what I've seen). He posted that paragraph so you could see the bolded sentence.

"Science CAN prove things."

No. You need a bit of philosophy of science. It is not a criticism of science to say that it cannot "prove" anything--it is inherent in the need of science to have basic assumptions. Saying that does not mean that we can't accept some conclusions without absolute proof. It is probably unwise for my friend to reject the idea that his arsenic-laced water is harming him. There is a lot of scientific work that suggests that tiny amounts of arsenic ingested over a number of years may cause bowel cancer.

I believe you are referencing Splenda here. Splenda is a sugar combined with chlorine. Not arsenic.

Coincidentally, chlorine is also in your salt... and it's not the part that makes you blood pressure go up.

He was talking about arsenic in his friend's well.

I can't drink them often. I don't eat sweets and when I drink diet soda, it makes me crave sweets like no one's business. The cravings are far worse if I drink the diet soda (or eat anything sweet) in the morning or early afternoon because I have the rest of the day to want sugar. If I want a diet drink at dinner I am more apt to do so because I do better. By the time i realize I am craving more sweets it is time to go to bed.

I used to eat one of those little dove chocolate squares a day and can't do it anymore for the same reason.

Jenna have you tried Green & Black's organic 70% (or 80%) dark chocolate? I have three of the 70% little squares without setting me off. Three squares is 60 calories. It isn't very sweet but helps with the chocolate urge. The Dove chocolate does contain some unnatural ingredients and maybe between that and the sugar it sets you off. Worth a try.

I second the Green & Black's! I am NOT a fan of dark chocolate. I like the Dove OK but I LOVE the Green & Black's. I eat the 85% and it tastes to me like chocolate cheesecake or mousse. It's very rich and a little goes a long way. It's one sweet I can have in my house and just eat a little at a time. SO GOOD.

I don't like any other dark.

I would like to introduce new research. Aspartame was approved for use in 1981. The average life expectancy has risen from 74 to 78.

Drink your diet soda everyone, Aspartame will extend your life! That's a diet coke my guy is holding.

:drinker:

Oh cripes...I don't actually drink diet soda...better start drinking it stat!

My grandmother never drank it and she's 97, so the argument is invalid.

I have not had my 32OZ Diet Pepsi in over 7 weeks and do not feel any bettter or notice any changes in my weight or cravings. I keep hearing that I shouldn't drink Diet Pepsi it is so bad for you. I really miss it and looked forward to having it every day. Is there really any reason not to have it if I am not noticing any difference? Anyone else experienced this??

Stop listening to fear mongers and idiots and drink your diet pepsi, you're fine

This. I'm perfectly fine and I drink 1-2 a day. If I didn't, I probably wouldn't have any water consumption throughout the day.

Are you counting your diet drinks as water? You still need at least 8 eight oz cups of water in addition to any other liquids.

yes it sure is, nutra sweet can cause migraines. it is better to drink regular coke or tea with no sugar. artifical sweetners are linked to cancer, migraine headaches etc

Migraines, yes. Aspartame is a common trigger. So are bananas.

Cancer?? I don't think there is evidence of this.

There was a study done on lab rats that is always cited to support this claim. In order to drink as much sweetener as they gave the rats, you'd probably drown before you'd catch cancer.

Not to mention that rats get tumors. It's what they do best. Well, that and scurry.

I feel like every study I've ever read about artificial sweeteners being bad for you have been like, "maybe, we think so, possibly, but maybe not". I like diet coke and drink it maybe a few times a month because I've developed a preference for water. But I honestly don't feel any different after drinking it.

That is the way science works. It can never "prove" anything. Evidence that is obtained from scientific studies "suggests" "supports the hypothesis", etc.

i tried telling these folks that very thing a couple days ago and they wouldn't believe it. lol

No, you tried telling us that science can't establish causation. Then I tried to teach you about control studies. Then you posted some stuff by Hume about "proving" this or that. It didn't make much sense and I got a warning or something about it.

You tried to pass off correlation as causation and you made a big error. You told us you're not a scientist or a researcher.

So, yeah.

I said science cannot prove causation. which is true. it can only prove an extremely high likelihood of causation. Not the same thing.

yes it can. see my above post.

yeah your above post isn't more accurate than my college textbooks... lol

You flatly stated that you are not a scientist or a researcher. Are you now saying you have formal education on the principles of research? I find that extremely unlikely.

I feel like every study I've ever read about artificial sweeteners being bad for you have been like, "maybe, we think so, possibly, but maybe not". I like diet coke and drink it maybe a few times a month because I've developed a preference for water. But I honestly don't feel any different after drinking it.

That is the way science works. It can never "prove" anything. Evidence that is obtained from scientific studies "suggests" "supports the hypothesis", etc.

i tried telling these folks that very thing a couple days ago and they wouldn't believe it. lol

No, you tried telling us that science can't establish causation. Then I tried to teach you about control studies. Then you posted some stuff by Hume about "proving" this or that. It didn't make much sense and I got a warning or something about it.

You tried to pass off correlation as causation and you made a big error. You told us you're not a scientist or a researcher.

So, yeah.

I said science cannot prove causation. which is true. it can only prove an extremely high likelihood of causation. Not the same thing.

yes it can. see my above post.

yeah your above post isn't more accurate than my college textbooks... lol

You flatly stated that you are not a scientist or a researcher. Are you now saying you have formal education on the principles of research? I find that extremely unlikely.

i took a few science classes and a logic class, yeah. pretty standard. and re: your last post, we actually agree, since you said "reasonable certainty" which is correct. I've always been arguing that science can't prove absolute certainty.

with gravity, it's as close as it gets to absolute certainty.

with nutrition... it's way, way further away.

I've recently cut back my diet soda and low cal energy drinks for two reasons:
1. The cost
2. I tend to drink soda/energy drinks over water and my water amount has been suffering.

I would never cut it out completely and really don't care what the "research" says.

"Science CAN prove things."

No. You need a bit of philosophy of science. It is not a criticism of science to say that it cannot "prove" anything--it is inherent in the need of science to have basic assumptions. Saying that does not mean that we can't accept some conclusions without absolute proof. It is probably unwise for my friend to reject the idea that his arsenic-laced water is harming him. There is a lot of scientific work that suggests that tiny amounts of arsenic ingested over a number of years may cause bowel cancer.

I believe you are referencing Splenda here. Splenda is a sugar combined with chlorine. Not arsenic.

Coincidentally, chlorine is also in your salt... and it's not the part that makes you blood pressure go up.

No--if you will check back, you will see that I was speaking about my friend who has arsenic in his well. Nothing that I said could be construed as reference to Splenda??? I am well aware of the chemical formula for table salt.

I feel like every study I've ever read about artificial sweeteners being bad for you have been like, "maybe, we think so, possibly, but maybe not". I like diet coke and drink it maybe a few times a month because I've developed a preference for water. But I honestly don't feel any different after drinking it.

That is the way science works. It can never "prove" anything. Evidence that is obtained from scientific studies "suggests" "supports the hypothesis", etc.

i tried telling these folks that very thing a couple days ago and they wouldn't believe it. lol

No, you tried telling us that science can't establish causation. Then I tried to teach you about control studies. Then you posted some stuff by Hume about "proving" this or that. It didn't make much sense and I got a warning or something about it.

You tried to pass off correlation as causation and you made a big error. You told us you're not a scientist or a researcher.

So, yeah.

I said science cannot prove causation. which is true. it can only prove an extremely high likelihood of causation. Not the same thing.

yes it can. see my above post.

yeah your above post isn't more accurate than my college textbooks... lol

You flatly stated that you are not a scientist or a researcher. Are you now saying you have formal education on the principles of research? I find that extremely unlikely.

i took a few science classes and a logic class, yeah. pretty standard. and re: your last post, we actually agree, since you said "reasonable certainty" which is correct. I've always been arguing that science can't prove absolute certainty.

with gravity, it's as close as it gets to absolute certainty.

with nutrition... it's way, way further away.

I don't think taking a few science classes and a logic class qualifies you to make such judgments about science.

Anyway, that is not what you've been arguing. Well, you revert to arguing it every time someone calls you out on your ludicrous claim that science cannot establish causation. You also revert to saying that it's just nutritional science, not all science.

You make so many claims it's hard to keep up! You mistook correlation for causation; then said that science can't prove causation. It can. You just refuse to admit that you made a mistake. So be it.

255 scientists and 11 nobel laureates would disagree. posted it earlier. you're really hung up on this aren't you? let's move on.

I can't be the only one to appreciate the irony of someone arguing that science is far far away from being able to establish a causal relationship in matters of nutrition, all the while being so certain that diet soda causes health problems.

I can't be the only one to appreciate the irony of someone arguing that science is far far away from being able to establish a causal relationship in matters of nutrition, all the while being so certain that diet soda causes health problems.

He really really loves science when it appears to suggest that something he already believes is true.

But when it comes to confirming things he doesn't like, he's the ultimate skeptic.