Study: People lost more weight drinking diet soda...

Please, quick show of "bumps" if you know anyone who has EVER DIED of aspertame?

Anyone? Anyone know of anyone close to them who has DIED of aspertame?

So here is my evidence. Aspartame is so bad for you, it increases your life probabilty chance of developing brain cancer (and others) as well as be severely bad for depressed people. You may not be depressed, but this has to make you think, why does a sweetener cause such damage to them. Clearly if its not good for them, it is not good for the rest of the population.

http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/0006-3223(93)90251-8/abstract

Drink water.

(I'm not new to myfitnesspal but I have only recently started using it consistently. I'm a research doctor in cardiology and would welcome feedback, friend requests and comments).

Ok the question was do YOU know anyone PERSONALLY who has died and on their death bed was told they died from ASPERTAME?

I did not ask for study information

Do YOU personally know anyone who died from it?

You will never know of someone that dies directly of aspartame. It is not a bullet, it will not kill you instantly. It'll cause you to have more mutations (therefore cancer). It'll affect your neurons (brain + mood swings). As with many chemicals, these do not kill you instantly, you just die from cancer or other illnesses in the future.

How exactly does it "affect neurons"? Also, if I avoid all chemicals I am guaranteed not to die of cancer or any other illnesses in the future?

Sorry, causation =/= correlation

The study you mention
was paid for by the American Beverage Council, so it's not surprising that the results support their position...just sayin'.

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v38/n5/full/ijo201432a.html

"In summary, what are the best practices for ensuring a strong, unbiased body of obesity research? Certainly not refusing funding from those who wish to collaborate with scientists in becoming part of the solution; absolutely not by launching unsubstantiated attacks on reputable scientists with longstanding records of ethical conduct and meaningful scientific contribution; rather, it is first by giving funding source its proper position among many possible and equally important threats to objectivity and implementing safeguards to protect against such bias (and worse yet malfeasance). Second, we need to redouble our efforts to adhere to the basic principles of good science like reproducibility, replicability and other core evaluative procedures that ensure objective and reliable scientific reporting. Finally, we need to work toward open access to data regardless of its source. This will require the cooperation of those in the scientific community and among potential sources of funding. Ultimately, this type of transparency regardless of funding source will deliver a more robust and complete body of evidence. In short, scientists need to practice good science, sponsors must commit to transparency and noninfluence, media needs to practice responsible scientific journalism, and we all need to base our evaluations on scientific data and not on predetermined opinions rooted in our own emotion-laden bias for or against specific funding sources."

Sure, what science would you like? Science on people choosing bad habits over science?

Doug Lisle is the head of this field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX2btaDOBK8

for shish and giggles i watched the entire thing



......and i'm waiting tell me how it was relevant to the this thread? forget that there wasn't any actual science presented (ideas, sure, but not the science) i'm just trying to figure out the relevance. it was "we like stuff that we like" and i saw nothing about diet soda?

oh, and the youtube video didn't teach me how to be healthy either. perhaps i'm just dense?

Please, quick show of "bumps" if you know anyone who has EVER DIED of aspertame?

Anyone? Anyone know of anyone close to them who has DIED of aspertame?

So here is my evidence. Aspartame is so bad for you, it increases your life probabilty chance of developing brain cancer (and others) as well as be severely bad for depressed people. You may not be depressed, but this has to make you think, why does a sweetener cause such damage to them. Clearly if its not good for them, it is not good for the rest of the population.

http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/0006-3223(93)90251-8/abstract

Drink water.

(I'm not new to myfitnesspal but I have only recently started using it consistently. I'm a research doctor in cardiology and would welcome feedback, friend requests and comments).

Ok the question was do YOU know anyone PERSONALLY who has died and on their death bed was told they died from ASPERTAME?

I did not ask for study information

Do YOU personally know anyone who died from it?

You will never know of someone that dies directly of aspartame. It is not a bullet, it will not kill you instantly. It'll cause you to have more mutations (therefore cancer). It'll affect your neurons (brain + mood swings). As with many chemicals, these do not kill you instantly, you just die from cancer or other illnesses in the future.

How exactly does it "affect neurons"? Also, if I avoid all chemicals I am guaranteed not to die of cancer or any other illnesses in the future?

Sorry, causation =/= correlation

You are less likely to die of cancer or other illnesses if you minimise your exposure to chemicals or your intake of proven harmful chemicals. Naturally you're exposed to numerous chemicals just by living, so you still have an increased chance on top of your genetically programmed chance of getting cancer.

I do not understand how you can say causation does not equal correlation. This is like saying a person smoked 100 cigarettes and day and got lung cancer at 45 but for you the lung cancer had nothing to do with him smoking.

And lastly regarding the neurons, the study on mood swings and brain cancer states what it does to the neurons so you can read the paper. Otherwise another more severe study where you can actually look at the brain slices showed necrosis in mice. Meaning an increase in neuronal death. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0300483X83900434)

Just out curiosity, how much grams of sugar are in one can of 355ml diet pop? That pretty much is the negative in it for me

Why does anyone care what someone else chooses to drink? You like soda/diet soda? Great, have one! You don't like it/don't think it's good for you? Great, don't have one! I haven't drank soda in about 13 years, but that was MY choice, I don't really even like it at all anymore, and it helped with MY OWN PERSONAL weight loss in the initial stages, but I still buy it occasionally for my kids if they want some, and I really don't care if someone else drinks it. Everyone is different and has to follow their own path. Stop looking at other people's paths before you trip on your own...

I guess I answered my own question... Sweetened with aspartame. :laugh: :blushing:

Please, quick show of "bumps" if you know anyone who has EVER DIED of aspertame?

Anyone? Anyone know of anyone close to them who has DIED of aspertame?

So here is my evidence. Aspartame is so bad for you, it increases your life probabilty chance of developing brain cancer (and others) as well as be severely bad for depressed people. You may not be depressed, but this has to make you think, why does a sweetener cause such damage to them. Clearly if its not good for them, it is not good for the rest of the population.

http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/0006-3223(93)90251-8/abstract

Drink water.

(I'm not new to myfitnesspal but I have only recently started using it consistently. I'm a research doctor in cardiology and would welcome feedback, friend requests and comments).

Ok the question was do YOU know anyone PERSONALLY who has died and on their death bed was told they died from ASPERTAME?

I did not ask for study information

Do YOU personally know anyone who died from it?

You will never know of someone that dies directly of aspartame. It is not a bullet, it will not kill you instantly. It'll cause you to have more mutations (therefore cancer). It'll affect your neurons (brain + mood swings). As with many chemicals, these do not kill you instantly, you just die from cancer or other illnesses in the future.

How exactly does it "affect neurons"? Also, if I avoid all chemicals I am guaranteed not to die of cancer or any other illnesses in the future?

Sorry, causation =/= correlation

You are less likely to die of cancer or other illnesses if you minimise your exposure to chemicals or your intake of proven harmful chemicals. Naturally you're exposed to numerous chemicals just by living, so you still have an increased chance on top of your genetically programmed chance of getting cancer.

I do not understand how you can say causation does not equal correlation. This is like saying a person smoked 100 cigarettes and day and got lung cancer at 45 but for you the lung cancer had nothing to do with him smoking.

And lastly regarding the neurons, the study on mood swings and brain cancer states what it does to the neurons so you can read the paper. Otherwise another more severe study where you can actually look at the brain slices showed necrosis in mice. Meaning an increase in neuronal death. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0300483X83900434)

There have been cases of lung cancer in those who don't smoke cigarettes as well. On the other hand, many who do smoke cigarettes never get cancer. You can't start at chemicals and automatically assume they will cause cancer or other problems.


That study you linked to states that the mice did not develop problems until they were dosed with a toxic level of aspartate. Read the abstract. It's determining the level of aspartate toxicity, not proving that aspartate causes neuron damage.

Of course a study sponsored by a soft drink company is going to find that people will lose more weight drinking diet soda... is anyone really surprised at this?

People need to stop putting unnecessary (non-medically necessary) chemicals in their bodies. We are just now beginning to discover the long-term effects of drinking diet soda. Everyone talks about "going green" when it comes to the environment, which is good, but when it comes to our own bodies a lot of people don't seem to care.

Switch to water. Water should be your primary beverage. Water doesn't have long-term health effects. Water does not have artificial sweeteners that trick your body into thinking it's drinking sugar. Etc, etc. Most people don't drink enough water, and drinking soda/sugary drinks adds to the problem. You actually need about 2 cups of water to make up for each cup of diet/sugar drink.

Yes, it's difficult. I used to be addicted to Mountain Dew. I only drank water before bed after I brushed my teeth and the rest of the time it was soda. Every once in a while I'd drink some juice but my primary beverage was soda. I noticed I was slowly gaining weight and didn't like the way I looked. My face was round (it's normally oval-shaped), my stomach was big, my clothes were getting tight. So on January 1, 2013 when the clock struck midnight I finished what was in my cup and that was it. The first few days are the hardest (I really, really wanted Mtn Dew and almost gave in), but it got easier after that. I quit cold turkey because I knew that if I gave in and had a cup I would easily justify getting "just one more" to myself and I'd never quit. After the first two weeks it was easy and I haven't had soda since, except for a 20oz bottle of Sprite at the hotel and some Sprite in my drink at the Blue Bayou when I went to Disneyland in March. But that was a rare thing (vacation) and not a daily habit. I also wasn't worried about the extra calories because I was walking around all day and would burn it off anyway.

Well, from what I understand ( and I am sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong :laugh:) of this study those that became the water drinkers did not only drink water but added in calorie drinks like fruit juice, and other sweet calories to compensate for the loss of the sweet taste of the diet sodas.

That in itself would cause a tilt in favor of the diet soda drinkers weight loss.

It's still calories in vs calories out. :flowerforyou:

People majorly fail to read and interpret the study and put their own meanings into it. To make it simple, what it shows is only this: *IF* you are a soda drinker and you are trying to lose weight in a non calorie controlled diet, if you decide to switch to ONLY water, you will probably intake more calories than if you drank diet soda while trying to lose weight in that same calorie uncontrolled diet. THATS ALL!!

It does *NOT* indicate diet soda helps you lose weight, but it does tend to say that if you drank soda previously and restrict yourself from it while losing weight and not counting calories, you will probably eat more. I'd say that's true with ANY food you like and decide to "cold turkey" out of your diet and try to lose weight at the same time. SO its basically saying ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW!!

And then yes, you probably should at least have some suspicion in your mind that the results may have been slanted by the funding source. But since it says nothing new or interesting, I doubt they influenced it. Only the presentation was necessary, and just like this topic, you get people coming to the wrong conclusion and running around spreading the pro-artificial sweetener message, that this study doesn't even support! They sure gauged people well, no study manipulation necessary.

People should drink what they like according to their own preference.

Personally I hate aspartame, it gives me headaches and just doesn't agree with me at all, it messes up my digestion, etc. I stopped drinking soda pop except on rare occasions years ago. On the rare occasions I do have one, it is green tea or ICB soda, which is the real stuff with pure cane sugar, if I am going to have one, I just have that.

I prefer things like water, unsweetened iced tea, protein shakes. That doesn't mean I hate artificial sweeteners, but I do actively try to avoid aspartame, and limit how much of some of them I have, like mannitol, too much of that bothers me. Other sweeteners, like sucralose and stevia for example, don't bother me at all.

People majorly fail to read and interpret the study and put their own meanings into it. To make it simple, what it shows is only this: *IF* you are a soda drinker and you are trying to lose weight in a non calorie controlled diet, if you decide to switch to ONLY water, you will probably intake more calories than if you drank diet soda while trying to lose weight in that same calorie uncontrolled diet. THATS ALL!!

It does *NOT* indicate diet soda helps you lose weight, but it does tend to say that if you drank soda previously and restrict yourself from it while losing weight and not counting calories, you will probably eat more. I'd say that's true with ANY food you like and decide to "cold turkey" out of your diet and try to lose weight at the same time. SO its basically saying ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW!!

And then yes, you probably should at least have some suspicion in your mind that the results may have been slanted by the funding source. But since it says nothing new or interesting, I doubt they influenced it. Only the presentation was necessary, and just like this topic, you get people coming to the wrong conclusion and running around spreading the pro-artificial sweetener message, that this study doesn't even support! They sure gauged people well, no study manipulation necessary.

Thank you. Someone who understands how scientific research works.

I don't have to read the study.
Good luck with all the trash chemicals Diet Pepsi has (Aspartame, etc...)

Water has no long term effects, we need it. Biology says it's a fundamental need for life.

Just keep drinking Diet Pepsi for years and years and only you will see the long-term effects of so much Diet Pepsi

How many years? I'm going on 34 years and nothing has happened yet . . .