coke light, diet soda, sprite zero

I read a few studies on Aspartame, and I've cut it out completely. I won't even chew gum that has Aspartame in it. I was getting really bad migraines, but as soon as I cut it out, not a single problem since.

I'd say skip the diet sodas. I do not consume anything with artificial sweeteners, in part because they physically make me sick, but also because they are nothing but processed chemicals. I don't drink a lot of soda, so if I want a coke I'll just have a coke. I just stick with water, tea and coffee - any enjoy adding a little juice or lime to my water for flavor.

I drink diet soda every day and have lost over 100lbs. Never hindered me one bit.

I distinctly remember a board like this that got shut down due to ridiculousness that occurred after a while.

There are people who are going to tell you that diet drinks/zero drinks are the devil and grr be afraid and stop drinking them. I had one person preach to me that aspartame causes MS.

There are also people who are going to tell you that drinks like this pose no problems at all.

The only thing I could think (at all) that could be a down side to diet soda is sodium content.

Make your own decision. If you think it will help you to quit soda, then do it. If you want to keep drinking it then that's fine too.

rabbitjb wrote: »

I think some people don't actually understand what correlation means

We need those pirates/global warming graphs.

Completely safe to drink, and will not cause weight gain unless it contributes to a calorie surplus.

tomatoey wrote: »

I haven't read these studies, actually usually they address possible limitations in the discussion section. did they?

I am befuddled how someone can argue intently without actually reading the studies they are arguing for.

psulemon wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

I haven't read these studies, actually usually they address possible limitations in the discussion section. did they?

I am befuddled how someone can argue intently without actually reading the studies they are arguing for.

I'm not arguing for or against the particular studies in question, they may be poorly designed, I don't know. Putting an epidemiological study to the standard of having to "prove" causation is a weak "gotcha!", because that kind of research doesn't make causal claims. It comes up on MFP all the time. (Btw no one positively "proves" anything, even in an experimental study - they provide evidence against a standard hypothesis, and discuss the relative probability of an alternate hypothesis).

Here are reasonable criteria to use in evaluating a correlational study like the ones used in epidemiology (and nutrition, generally):

Bradford Hill criteria
Main article: Bradford Hill criteria

In 1965 Austin Bradford Hill proposed a series of considerations to help assess evidence of causation,[38] which have come to be commonly known as the "Bradford Hill criteria". In contrast to the explicit intentions of their author, Hill's considerations are now sometimes taught as a checklist to be implemented for assessing causality.[39] Hill himself said "None of my nine viewpoints can bring indisputable evidence for or against the cause-and-effect hypothesis and none can be required sine qua non."[38]

Strength: A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect, though the larger the association, the more likely that it is causal.[38]
Consistency: Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples strengthens the likelihood of an effect.[38]
Specificity: Causation is likely if a very specific population at a specific site and disease with no other likely explanation. The more specific an association between a factor and an effect is, the bigger the probability of a causal relationship.[38]
Temporality: The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay).[38]
Biological gradient: Greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect. However, in some cases, the mere presence of the factor can trigger the effect. In other cases, an inverse proportion is observed: greater exposure leads to lower incidence.[38]
Plausibility: A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful (but Hill noted that knowledge of the mechanism is limited by current knowledge).[38]
Coherence: Coherence between epidemiological and laboratory findings increases the likelihood of an effect. However, Hill noted that "... lack of such [laboratory] evidence cannot nullify the epidemiological effect on associations".[38]
Experiment: "Occasionally it is possible to appeal to experimental evidence".[38]
Analogy: The effect of similar factors may be considered.[38]

They use observation, and rational & statistical analysis to consider the relationship between variables they think may work together. They can never say they for sure do. They don't pretend to.

Outright dismissal of a study of this kind just because it's correlational is actually against science. (There may be good reasons to criticize it, but that's not a fair one.)
The first stage of science is description. That is the aim of these kinds of studies. Then, the next step (if it is possible, it's not, usually, with humans and things like diseases) is to test a hypothesis generated from that description in an experimental study.

And all of these studies build upon each other - and, some exclude others - and together provide "converging evidence" that suggests we can guess, within a range of probability, whether two phenomena are or are not related.

tomatoey wrote: »

And all of these studies build upon each other - and, some exclude others - and together provide "converging evidence" that suggests we can guess, within a range of probability, whether two phenomena are or are not related.

You gotta take care with that too. Random dice rolls build on each other, but every time you roll the odds reset themselves. My dad has been trying to drill this principle of probability in to me for years. I think I get it now.

What I hope to see in dietary studies in the future is empirical measurement of food intake, longer studies, with more participants. Our gadgets are nearly smart enough to do that for us.

hollyk57 wrote: »

I'd say skip the diet sodas. I do not consume anything with artificial sweeteners, in part because they physically make me sick, but also because they are nothing but processed chemicals.

What people don't realize is that any food or drink that's "natural" goes through the "process" of being chemically unbonded in the digestion process. Same happens for diet drinks (which by the way contains ingredients naturally found in other foods). So the same aspartic acid in diet soda (at 185mg), is lower than that of a cooked Alaskan Halibut at 5335mg. The considered acceptable daily amount of aspartic acid for daily intake is about 50mg a day for every kilogram of body weight. As you can see a can of diet soda is WELL under that ratio and much more than a "healthy" halibut.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition