Giving up diet soda. So hard!
Options
Replies
-
jasonmh630 wrote: »
Agreed- Supportive =/= agreeing with everything said
Supportive also != I won't answer your question until you let me judge your reason for asking it.
As for the non-science based "facts", does that start with "everything in moderation?" Have to wonder how many people put off visiting a doctor or ignored symptoms of something because they were browbeaten into believing that what they felt in their own body was their own guilt or listening to the wrong people or setting themselves up for failure.
Have I judged anyone in this thread? If so please show me.
How long have you been in the forums? I've never seen a poster to not seek medical attention over concerns... its quite the opposite i've found.
The very first reply to the thread was demanding to know why she was giving it up. It went downhill from there for the next 5 pages.
Asking why is simply asking why.... No one was downright judgmental to the OP from what I saw. People offered different opinions and the thread got sidetracked.... which is pretty much the norm with these types of threads.
the question was to set her up to be judged.
Maybe, maybe not. I read it one way, you could have read it another.
based on how argumentative people are on this site about topics like this, it's a very educated guess as to what their intentions were.0 -
An excellent tea to try is Aveda comforting tea. Its caffeine free and is sweetened with licorice root and peppermint. Oh, and its organic. A little pricey, but so good!!0
-
jasonmh630 wrote: »
Agreed- Supportive =/= agreeing with everything said
Supportive also != I won't answer your question until you let me judge your reason for asking it.
As for the non-science based "facts", does that start with "everything in moderation?" Have to wonder how many people put off visiting a doctor or ignored symptoms of something because they were browbeaten into believing that what they felt in their own body was their own guilt or listening to the wrong people or setting themselves up for failure.
Have I judged anyone in this thread? If so please show me.
How long have you been in the forums? I've never seen a poster to not seek medical attention over concerns... its quite the opposite i've found.
The very first reply to the thread was demanding to know why she was giving it up. It went downhill from there for the next 5 pages.
Asking why is simply asking why.... No one was downright judgmental to the OP from what I saw. People offered different opinions and the thread got sidetracked.... which is pretty much the norm with these types of threads.
the question was to set her up to be judged.
Maybe, maybe not. I read it one way, you could have read it another.
based on how argumentative people are on this site about topics like this, it's a very educated guess as to what their intentions were.
I take people's posts at face value and don't make assumptions about intent.
makes forum life so much easier. 0 -
jasonmh630 wrote: »
Agreed- Supportive =/= agreeing with everything said
Supportive also != I won't answer your question until you let me judge your reason for asking it.
As for the non-science based "facts", does that start with "everything in moderation?" Have to wonder how many people put off visiting a doctor or ignored symptoms of something because they were browbeaten into believing that what they felt in their own body was their own guilt or listening to the wrong people or setting themselves up for failure.
Have I judged anyone in this thread? If so please show me.
How long have you been in the forums? I've never seen a poster to not seek medical attention over concerns... its quite the opposite i've found.
The very first reply to the thread was demanding to know why she was giving it up. It went downhill from there for the next 5 pages.
Asking why is simply asking why.... No one was downright judgmental to the OP from what I saw. People offered different opinions and the thread got sidetracked.... which is pretty much the norm with these types of threads.
the question was to set her up to be judged.
Maybe, maybe not. I read it one way, you could have read it another.
based on how argumentative people are on this site about topics like this, it's a very educated guess as to what their intentions were.
I take people's posts at face value and don't make assumptions about intent. makes forum life so much easier.
i go based on past experience with the person setting future expectations. why ignore past experience?0 -
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/artificial-sweeteners/
Here's another article, this one from Harvard, talking about how artificial sweeteners cause the brain to crave more sweet foods (and may be linked to increased risk for diabetes). It references a few different studies, and all of them are cited at the bottom in the footnotes if you care to read them for yourselves.
"The human brain responds to sweetness with signals to eat more. By providing a sweet taste without any calories, however, artificial sweeteners cause us to crave more sweet foods and drinks, which can add up to excess calories."0 -
jasonmh630 wrote: »
Agreed- Supportive =/= agreeing with everything said
Supportive also != I won't answer your question until you let me judge your reason for asking it.
As for the non-science based "facts", does that start with "everything in moderation?" Have to wonder how many people put off visiting a doctor or ignored symptoms of something because they were browbeaten into believing that what they felt in their own body was their own guilt or listening to the wrong people or setting themselves up for failure.
Have I judged anyone in this thread? If so please show me.
How long have you been in the forums? I've never seen a poster to not seek medical attention over concerns... its quite the opposite i've found.
The very first reply to the thread was demanding to know why she was giving it up. It went downhill from there for the next 5 pages.
Asking why is simply asking why.... No one was downright judgmental to the OP from what I saw. People offered different opinions and the thread got sidetracked.... which is pretty much the norm with these types of threads.
the question was to set her up to be judged.
Maybe, maybe not. I read it one way, you could have read it another.
based on how argumentative people are on this site about topics like this, it's a very educated guess as to what their intentions were.
I take people's posts at face value and don't make assumptions about intent. makes forum life so much easier.
i go based on past experience with the person setting future expectations. why ignore past experience?
Sounds like we've had different forum experiences. To each his own.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »gertudejekyl wrote: »I think there is secret addictive ingredient in diet soda - besides the caffeine. I am now almost completely off- I take a container of plain black tea with me - it's ok.
Are you serious?
I took that as a joke. You know "jokes" the things you do not take seriously and sometimes laugh at.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke?s=t
Thanks ever so. You can take that as sarcasm. You know what that is, right? Or shall I be patronizing and provide a definition?
Considering the overall context of the comment--that the poster had quit drinking soda and is now drinking tea... well, I asked a logical question.
0 -
When I gave up soda, I switched it with other things and worked my way down to drinking water. I had never been a water drinker before so I hated it, but now I rarely drink anything else. I went from soda to diet soda, diet soda to juice, juice to flavored water, and now I drink just water or flavored sparkling waters. Mineral water is also great! You can also try mixing some calorie-free flavors in, like with mio or low-cal with crystal light. Hope this helped!0
-
I also didn't think OP was joking.mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »gertudejekyl wrote: »I think there is secret addictive ingredient in diet soda - besides the caffeine. I am now almost completely off- I take a container of plain black tea with me - it's ok.
Are you serious?
I took that as a joke. You know "jokes" the things you do not take seriously and sometimes laugh at.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke?s=t
Thanks ever so. You can take that as sarcasm. You know what that is, right? Or shall I be patronizing and provide a definition?
Considering the overall context of the comment--that the poster had quit drinking soda and is now drinking tea... well, I asked a logical question.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/artificial-sweeteners/
Here's another article, this one from Harvard, talking about how artificial sweeteners cause the brain to crave more sweet foods (and may be linked to increased risk for diabetes). It references a few different studies, and all of them are cited at the bottom in the footnotes if you care to read them for yourselves.
"The human brain responds to sweetness with signals to eat more. By providing a sweet taste without any calories, however, artificial sweeteners cause us to crave more sweet foods and drinks, which can add up to excess calories."
That quote sums up, to a T, the hypothesis from the study I posted earlier. And again, it's just a hypothesis, based largely on rat studies. The human study provided evidence that didn't support the claim.
The links in the Harvard article? The one lead to a mere abstract on Pub Med that did nothing to substantiate the claim that artificial sweeteners cause the brain to crave more sweets. The diabetes one? Not sure, but not seeing that as anything more than correlation =/= causation.
0 -
When I gave up soda, I switched it with other things and worked my way down to drinking water. I had never been a water drinker before so I hated it, but now I rarely drink anything else. I went from soda to diet soda, diet soda to juice, juice to flavored water, and now I drink just water or flavored sparkling waters. Mineral water is also great! You can also try mixing some calorie-free flavors in, like with mio or low-cal with crystal light. Hope this helped!
isnt adding calorie free flavors back in exactly the same as drinking diet soda?0 -
Instead of giving it up, just cut down. If you like it then have it in moderation, I only drink one or two cans of diet coke a week, keeps me going xx0
-
That "hypothesis" has been supported by many different studies. By the way, the Univ. Of California San Diego study was on humans. And if rat studies are considered valid by scientists and doctors, I'm not sure why some message board posters seem to have such a problem with them!mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/artificial-sweeteners/
Here's another article, this one from Harvard, talking about how artificial sweeteners cause the brain to crave more sweet foods (and may be linked to increased risk for diabetes). It references a few different studies, and all of them are cited at the bottom in the footnotes if you care to read them for yourselves.
"The human brain responds to sweetness with signals to eat more. By providing a sweet taste without any calories, however, artificial sweeteners cause us to crave more sweet foods and drinks, which can add up to excess calories."
That quote sums up, to a T, the hypothesis from the study I posted earlier. And again, it's just a hypothesis, based largely on rat studies. The human study provided evidence that didn't support the claim.
If the Harvard School of Public Health is recommending that people limit use and that children avoid artificial sweeteners, then it seems their interpretation of the evidence is similar to mine.
You can make your own decisions regarding your diet and health. I have no problem at all with that. But based on the studies and my own personal experience with cravings, I am siding with Harvard on this one...regardless of how many random internet dudes claim otherwise.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
That "hypothesis" has been supported by many different studies. If the Harvard School of Public Health is recommending that people limit use and that children avoid artificial sweeteners, then it seems their interpretation of the evidence is similar to mine.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/artificial-sweeteners/
Here's another article, this one from Harvard, talking about how artificial sweeteners cause the brain to crave more sweet foods (and may be linked to increased risk for diabetes). It references a few different studies, and all of them are cited at the bottom in the footnotes if you care to read them for yourselves.
"The human brain responds to sweetness with signals to eat more. By providing a sweet taste without any calories, however, artificial sweeteners cause us to crave more sweet foods and drinks, which can add up to excess calories."
That quote sums up, to a T, the hypothesis from the study I posted earlier. And again, it's just a hypothesis, based largely on rat studies. The human study provided evidence that didn't support the claim.
You can make your own decisions regarding your diet and health. I have no problem at all with that. But based on the studies and my own personal experience with cravings, I am siding with Harvard on this one...regardless of how many random internet dudes claim otherwise.
No it hasn't. Find me the studies. Also? You were arguing that the problem was the craving. Now it's plain use? Pick one. Additionally, that Harvard article was far from conclusive about anything, and was as sensationalist as any media piece being full of "mights" and "mays".
You said a key word there... "limit". I'm not arguing for a free-for-all. I'm saying that there's no need to totally eliminate intake. I think that, on the whole, the majority of someone's daily fluid intake should be water. I personally find that more thirst quenching than any other beverage.
0 -
They clearly state you should use artificial sweeteners only as a possible short term measure to wean yourself from sugary soda...not as a long term solution.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
That "hypothesis" has been supported by many different studies. If the Harvard School of Public Health is recommending that people limit use and that children avoid artificial sweeteners, then it seems their interpretation of the evidence is similar to mine.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/artificial-sweeteners/
Here's another article, this one from Harvard, talking about how artificial sweeteners cause the brain to crave more sweet foods (and may be linked to increased risk for diabetes). It references a few different studies, and all of them are cited at the bottom in the footnotes if you care to read them for yourselves.
"The human brain responds to sweetness with signals to eat more. By providing a sweet taste without any calories, however, artificial sweeteners cause us to crave more sweet foods and drinks, which can add up to excess calories."
That quote sums up, to a T, the hypothesis from the study I posted earlier. And again, it's just a hypothesis, based largely on rat studies. The human study provided evidence that didn't support the claim.
You can make your own decisions regarding your diet and health. I have no problem at all with that. But based on the studies and my own personal experience with cravings, I am siding with Harvard on this one...regardless of how many random internet dudes claim otherwise.
No it hasn't. Find me the studies. Also? You were arguing that the problem was the craving. Now it's plain use? Pick one. Additionally, that Harvard article was far from conclusive about anything, and was as sensationalist as any media piece being full of "mights" and "mays".
You said a key word there... "limit". I'm not arguing for a free-for-all. I'm saying that there's no need to totally eliminate intake. I think that, on the whole, the majority of someone's daily fluid intake should be water. I personally find that more thirst quenching than any other beverage.
Several studies were referenced in the articles I linked...at least 4 or 5...take your pick! Harvard has reviewed all the research and made a recommendation. Their article isn't based on any single study. Rats, humans, brain chemistry, observational studies...many studies have been done and the majority come to the same conclusion.
You think Harvard is sensationalist? Sorry, but if you feel that way then I don't even know what to say. There is no evidence at all to suggest that. They are not trying to sell papers or get ratings...there is nothing for them to gain by being sensationalist.0 -
jasonmh630 wrote: »
Agreed- Supportive =/= agreeing with everything said
Supportive also != I won't answer your question until you let me judge your reason for asking it.
As for the non-science based "facts", does that start with "everything in moderation?" Have to wonder how many people put off visiting a doctor or ignored symptoms of something because they were browbeaten into believing that what they felt in their own body was their own guilt or listening to the wrong people or setting themselves up for failure.
Have I judged anyone in this thread? If so please show me.
How long have you been in the forums? I've never seen a poster to not seek medical attention over concerns... its quite the opposite i've found.
The very first reply to the thread was demanding to know why she was giving it up. It went downhill from there for the next 5 pages.
Asking why is simply asking why.... No one was downright judgmental to the OP from what I saw. People offered different opinions and the thread got sidetracked.... which is pretty much the norm with these types of threads.
the question was to set her up to be judged.
Maybe, maybe not. I read it one way, you could have read it another.
based on how argumentative people are on this site about topics like this, it's a very educated guess as to what their intentions were.
I take people's posts at face value and don't make assumptions about intent. makes forum life so much easier.
i go based on past experience with the person setting future expectations. why ignore past experience?
Sounds like we've had different forum experiences. To each his own.
then you skip a lot of posts and threads.0 -
The articles cited in the Harvard piece didn't prove anything. I already rebutted them all. The Harvard piece was far from definitive. Critical reading is a necessary skill when taking information on board. The words "may" and "might" are not used when presenting proven facts.-1
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »The articles cited in the Harvard piece didn't prove anything. I already rebutted them all. The Harvard piece was far from definitive. Critical reading is a necessary skill when taking information on board. The words "may" and "might" are not used when presenting proven facts.
I don't need a study to tell me that I'm 105 pounds and 40 years old for almost 2 years now after mostly quitting soda. yay me! i think i'll stay off the soda.
EDIT: the 105 pounds for almost 2 years, not the 40.0 -
jasonmh630 wrote: »
Agreed- Supportive =/= agreeing with everything said
Supportive also != I won't answer your question until you let me judge your reason for asking it.
As for the non-science based "facts", does that start with "everything in moderation?" Have to wonder how many people put off visiting a doctor or ignored symptoms of something because they were browbeaten into believing that what they felt in their own body was their own guilt or listening to the wrong people or setting themselves up for failure.
Have I judged anyone in this thread? If so please show me.
How long have you been in the forums? I've never seen a poster to not seek medical attention over concerns... its quite the opposite i've found.
The very first reply to the thread was demanding to know why she was giving it up. It went downhill from there for the next 5 pages.
Asking why is simply asking why.... No one was downright judgmental to the OP from what I saw. People offered different opinions and the thread got sidetracked.... which is pretty much the norm with these types of threads.
the question was to set her up to be judged.
Maybe, maybe not. I read it one way, you could have read it another.
based on how argumentative people are on this site about topics like this, it's a very educated guess as to what their intentions were.
I take people's posts at face value and don't make assumptions about intent. makes forum life so much easier.
i go based on past experience with the person setting future expectations. why ignore past experience?
Sounds like we've had different forum experiences. To each his own.
then you skip a lot of posts and threads.
Or they are already nuked by the time I get home from work. we can go round and round.... but I'm not side tracking the thread any further.0 -
I've never found that drinking diet soda increased my cravings for sweets. If anything it made me want salty snacks. But diet soda has replaced my cravings for non-diet soda which is a real calorie deficit result.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions