coke light, diet soda, sprite zero
Options
Replies
-
Expecting epidemiological research to prove causation, and pis$ing on it when it doesn't, is like saying, "this horse doesn't fly! it's a crappy horse!"0
-
sbahlezinwe67 wrote: »Do you guys believe that because these drinks prove to have less than 10 calories in each 250ml are safe to drink and do not course weight gain?
No ONE thing you eat causes weight gain. All of your food and drink contains calories (except water and some artificially flavored drinks). Weight gain is caused by eating/drinking more calories than your body needs to maintain its current weight. If you maintain on about 2,000 calories, anything over 2,000 calories would cause a gain over time. If you ate 3,000 calories of broccoli every day, you would gain weight.
0 -
I used to go cross-eyed trying to explain to the dangerously informed (just enough information to be dangerous) that sugar drinks, even "natural" ones like apple juice, are death to diabetics. Diet sodas are a much safer choice.
Working at getting my liquids in a day, I fight boredom. Water is wonderful but I have to change it up once in a while. So I drink teas, flavour my water with Mio or a spritz of lemon juice from a plastic lemon, or drink a diet soda. So anecdotally, diet sodas have done me no harm. 90 pounds down now.
Also from a scientific standpoint, aspartame flavoured products taken in normal amounts, present no harm.
"U.S. GAO – HRD-87-46 Food and Drug Administration: Food Additive Approval Process Followed for Aspartame, 18 June 1987". Retrieved 5 September 2008
Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Doull J et al. (2007). "Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies". Critical Reviews in Toxicology 37 (8): 629–727. doi:10.1080/10408440701516184. PMID 17828671.0 -
I have lost 31 pounds in 8 weeks. I drink nothing but 1/2 my weight in OZ of water per day. That is all.0
-
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »seandaniken wrote: »On average, Americans drink about 1.5 cans per day. It doesn’t matter if you’re on a diet or not, one of the most popular ways to satisfy a sweet tooth is with a cold, refreshing soda.
Diet colas and sodas have long been considered a healthy alternative when trying to shed a few extra pounds. After all, diet sodas typically contain zero calories because the sugars are eliminated and replaced with no-calorie sweeteners. The problem, however, is that diet soda drinkers tend to experience accelerated weight gain, boosting their risk for both metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Researchers say that diet soda can make you gain weight.
Now, what in the what now? That’s a fair question. After all, how could a zero-calorie diet drink be seemingly worse for you than the sugar-packed alternatives? The main issue is that it causes people to make up for those lost calories elsewhere. They’ll say to themselves, “Okay, I’m having a diet soda with my Big Mac combo so I might as well get a large.” It sounds crazy, but the research backs it up.
And. There. It. Is.
You might want read the paper and see if you can spot the obvious confounding errors which make it worthless
Ok, there is NO public health study that can demonstrate causation because of the impossibility of going back in time and the real-world nature of its subject. The expectation that this kind of study should is misguided. Correlation is the best - the only thing - a public health study can do. Prospective studies can say things a little bit more confidently than retrospective ones, but yeah that's it.
That doesn't mean public health studies are "worthless". Many studies find similar strong correlations points to something being up.
This one is worthless for a number of reasons - confusing correlation and causation merely being the worst one.
None of them confuse correlation with causation. No public health researcher would ever say, in a published study, "corn causes unicorns to grow out of butts". The media might distort what they do say but they would say :"among those who ate xxx% of corn per xxx, xxx% grew unicorns from their gluteus maximus, and xx&% from their glute medius"
Actually they do.
Not if they're publishing in a peer-reviewed journal in the modern era.
I've read the studies. The article linked to in the quoted post even explains why they're rubbish - the people who drunk a lit of diet soda made no other changes to diet because they assumed, wrongly, it was all they needed to do.
So the problem with all those studies is that diet soda wasn't the causative agent - it was a failure to moderate calorie intake because they thought drinking diet soda would be enough.
The problem is the people, not the substance.
There is always going to be an issue with 3rd and 4th variables in this kind of research, because the design of public health studies means those possible confounds cannot be excluded in the way a randomized controlled trial could exclude them. They can do their best to identify what they think is the probable causative agent and draw from literature (often on animal research) to theorize on possible mechanisms, but it (observation and probability) is the nature of the beast. Even experiments where they control for x or whatever can only deal in probability.0 -
I've lost 110 lbs now (300 to 190), and I have always had a Coke Zero with lunch. I don't think there's anything wrong with drinking it, as long as you're not trying to use it as a substitute or alternative to drinking straight water.0
-
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »seandaniken wrote: »On average, Americans drink about 1.5 cans per day. It doesn’t matter if you’re on a diet or not, one of the most popular ways to satisfy a sweet tooth is with a cold, refreshing soda.
Diet colas and sodas have long been considered a healthy alternative when trying to shed a few extra pounds. After all, diet sodas typically contain zero calories because the sugars are eliminated and replaced with no-calorie sweeteners. The problem, however, is that diet soda drinkers tend to experience accelerated weight gain, boosting their risk for both metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Researchers say that diet soda can make you gain weight.
Now, what in the what now? That’s a fair question. After all, how could a zero-calorie diet drink be seemingly worse for you than the sugar-packed alternatives? The main issue is that it causes people to make up for those lost calories elsewhere. They’ll say to themselves, “Okay, I’m having a diet soda with my Big Mac combo so I might as well get a large.” It sounds crazy, but the research backs it up.
And. There. It. Is.
You might want read the paper and see if you can spot the obvious confounding errors which make it worthless
Ok, there is NO public health study that can demonstrate causation because of the impossibility of going back in time and the real-world nature of its subject. The expectation that this kind of study should is misguided. Correlation is the best - the only thing - a public health study can do. Prospective studies can say things a little bit more confidently than retrospective ones, but yeah that's it.
That doesn't mean public health studies are "worthless". Many studies find similar strong correlations points to something being up.
This one is worthless for a number of reasons - confusing correlation and causation merely being the worst one.
None of them confuse correlation with causation. No public health researcher would ever say, in a published study, "corn causes unicorns to grow out of butts". The media might distort what they do say but they would say :"among those who ate xxx% of corn per xxx, xxx% grew unicorns from their gluteus maximus, and xx&% from their glute medius"
Actually they do.
Not if they're publishing in a peer-reviewed journal in the modern era.
I've read the studies. The article linked to in the quoted post even explains why they're rubbish - the people who drunk a lit of diet soda made no other changes to diet because they assumed, wrongly, it was all they needed to do.
So the problem with all those studies is that diet soda wasn't the causative agent - it was a failure to moderate calorie intake because they thought drinking diet soda would be enough.
The problem is the people, not the substance.
There is always going to be an issue with 3rd and 4th variables in this kind of research, because the design of public health studies means they cannot be excluded in the way a randomized controlled trial could exclude them. They can do their best to identify what they think is the probable causative agent and draw from literature (often on animal research) to theorize on possible mechanisms, but it's the nature of the beast.
It is, but this is bad science because they miss the blindingly obvious causative factor by focusing on an irrelevant correlation.
I haven't read these studies, actually
usually they address possible limitations in the discussion section. did they? 0 -
KarenJanine wrote: »It's calories that matter for weight loss. There is no reason why these drinks alone would inhibit weight loss.
However, if someone is unable to enjoy their diet coke without a side of chips then it may be best from them to avoid it.
VERY well said!!!0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »seandaniken wrote: »On average, Americans drink about 1.5 cans per day. It doesn’t matter if you’re on a diet or not, one of the most popular ways to satisfy a sweet tooth is with a cold, refreshing soda.
Diet colas and sodas have long been considered a healthy alternative when trying to shed a few extra pounds. After all, diet sodas typically contain zero calories because the sugars are eliminated and replaced with no-calorie sweeteners. The problem, however, is that diet soda drinkers tend to experience accelerated weight gain, boosting their risk for both metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Researchers say that diet soda can make you gain weight.
Now, what in the what now? That’s a fair question. After all, how could a zero-calorie diet drink be seemingly worse for you than the sugar-packed alternatives? The main issue is that it causes people to make up for those lost calories elsewhere. They’ll say to themselves, “Okay, I’m having a diet soda with my Big Mac combo so I might as well get a large.” It sounds crazy, but the research backs it up.
And. There. It. Is.
You might want read the paper and see if you can spot the obvious confounding errors which make it worthless
Ok, there is NO public health study that can demonstrate causation because of the impossibility of going back in time and the real-world nature of its subject. The expectation that this kind of study should is misguided. Correlation is the best - the only thing - a public health study can do. Prospective studies can say things a little bit more confidently than retrospective ones, but yeah that's it.
That doesn't mean public health studies are "worthless". Many studies find similar strong correlations points to something being up.
This one is worthless for a number of reasons - confusing correlation and causation merely being the worst one.
None of them confuse correlation with causation. No public health researcher would ever say, in a published study, "corn causes unicorns to grow out of butts". The media might distort what they do say but they would say :"among those who ate xxx% of corn per xxx, xxx% grew unicorns from their gluteus maximus, and xx&% from their glute medius"
Actually they do.
Not if they're publishing in a peer-reviewed journal in the modern era.
I've read the studies. The article linked to in the quoted post even explains why they're rubbish - the people who drunk a lot of diet soda made no other changes to diet because they assumed, wrongly, it was all they needed to do.
So the problem with all those studies is that diet soda wasn't the causative agent - it was a failure to moderate calorie intake because they thought drinking diet soda would be enough.
The problem is the people, not the substance.
And how can you say that, definitively?0 -
RebeccaChemmy wrote: »You all hate on diet soda drinks and I drink them. I am personally against people drinking alcohol (not here to discuss that) but I don't go making threads saying, "Alcohol is bad! Everyone should stop drinking it!"
You do what works for you and I'll do what works for me.
What? Did you even read the Subject? When did the OP hate on anything?0 -
I hate diet soda but only because it tastes nasty (except for coke zero, i don't know how they do that)0
-
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »seandaniken wrote: »On average, Americans drink about 1.5 cans per day. It doesn’t matter if you’re on a diet or not, one of the most popular ways to satisfy a sweet tooth is with a cold, refreshing soda.
Diet colas and sodas have long been considered a healthy alternative when trying to shed a few extra pounds. After all, diet sodas typically contain zero calories because the sugars are eliminated and replaced with no-calorie sweeteners. The problem, however, is that diet soda drinkers tend to experience accelerated weight gain, boosting their risk for both metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Researchers say that diet soda can make you gain weight.
Now, what in the what now? That’s a fair question. After all, how could a zero-calorie diet drink be seemingly worse for you than the sugar-packed alternatives? The main issue is that it causes people to make up for those lost calories elsewhere. They’ll say to themselves, “Okay, I’m having a diet soda with my Big Mac combo so I might as well get a large.” It sounds crazy, but the research backs it up.
And. There. It. Is.
You might want read the paper and see if you can spot the obvious confounding errors which make it worthless
Ok, there is NO public health study that can demonstrate causation because of the impossibility of going back in time and the real-world nature of its subject. The expectation that this kind of study should is misguided. Correlation is the best - the only thing - a public health study can do. Prospective studies can say things a little bit more confidently than retrospective ones, but yeah that's it.
That doesn't mean public health studies are "worthless". Many studies find similar strong correlations points to something being up.
This one is worthless for a number of reasons - confusing correlation and causation merely being the worst one.
None of them confuse correlation with causation. No public health researcher would ever say, in a published study, "corn causes unicorns to grow out of butts". The media might distort what they do say but they would say :"among those who ate xxx% of corn per xxx, xxx% grew unicorns from their gluteus maximus, and xx&% from their glute medius"
Actually they do.
Not if they're publishing in a peer-reviewed journal in the modern era.
I've read the studies. The article linked to in the quoted post even explains why they're rubbish - the people who drunk a lit of diet soda made no other changes to diet because they assumed, wrongly, it was all they needed to do.
So the problem with all those studies is that diet soda wasn't the causative agent - it was a failure to moderate calorie intake because they thought drinking diet soda would be enough.
The problem is the people, not the substance.
There is always going to be an issue with 3rd and 4th variables in this kind of research, because the design of public health studies means they cannot be excluded in the way a randomized controlled trial could exclude them. They can do their best to identify what they think is the probable causative agent and draw from literature (often on animal research) to theorize on possible mechanisms, but it's the nature of the beast.
It is, but this is bad science because they miss the blindingly obvious causative factor by focusing on an irrelevant correlation.
I haven't read these studies, actually usually they address possible limitations in the discussion section. did they?
To a degree. Hey, I've seen bigger holes in studies published in Psych journals, but these ones are still pretty bad.
well maybe if I have time today I'll see what you mean0 -
Drink 2-3 diet sodas a day, lost 121 pounds.
0 -
I drink 2 cans of diet pepsi a day and lost over 50 pounds since August 0
-
I lost 80 pounds and drank Diet pop daily!
0 -
OP, you asked if those drinks really have the calories they say. Yes. Diet Coke has less than 1 calorie per 12oz serving because it's sweetened with aspartame. Aspartame contains calories, but it's so much sweeter than sugar that a very, very small amount is used per drink. Dr. Pepper Ten uses a combination of high fructose corn syrup and acesulfame potassium. Acesulfame potassium is as sweet as aspartame, so not much HFCS is needed. It's to mimic the Dr. Pepper flavor rather than sweetness. Dr. Pepper Ten claims 20 calories in 20oz and 10 calories in 12oz, so the math's a little squirrely there, but if you're consuming calories more calories than expected, it's not enough to worry about.0
-
Drank no soda, only lost 10kg. Guess I should drink more.0
-
jdstathopoulos wrote: »I think cutting soda out completely is the best option to lose/maintain weight. I have nothing scientific to back that up, but personally lost fat and gained muscle when I stopped drinking any sort of soda.
absolutely agreed
0 -
Drinking diet soda does not cause me to eat more calories. In fact, the bubbles help make me feel full!0
-
I drink one diet Sunkist a day but I still have 85 pounds to lose so maybe that is not a good thing.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 945 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions