Diet Coke vs Water??-- 0 cals vs 0 cals
Replies
-
-
So. The consensus appears to be that there is nothing at all that shows that diet soda and specifically aspartame is unhealthy or dare one suggest... bad for you.
First lets give this the common sense treatment. You don't let your pets drink it, you don't give it to your houseplants, but you're fine guzzling it all day for yourself. The human body is only up to 60% water so why would one be so foolish as to assume that replenishing that water with... water, would be the healthier option.
Frothy yet? You know you are.
Now for some science.
Diet Drink Consumption and the Risk of Cardiovascular Events:A Report from the Women’s Health Initiative - CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates an association between high diet drink intake and CVD outcomes and mortality in post-menopausal women in the WHI OS
"High diet drink intake" equates to two or more per day. The control/reference group being 0-3 per month.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269637605_Diet_Drink_Consumption_and_the_Risk_of_Cardiovascular_Events_A_Report_from_the_Women's_Health_Initiative
But I'm not a post-menopausal woman, so I'm obviously safe.
If, however, you are a member of the Kingdom Animalia, aka Metazoa for the truly hardcore, this next bit of information might be more interesting to you.
A review of the genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of aspartame: does it safe or not? - lets just all take a moment to chuckle at the meme worthiness of that horribly and hopefully inaccurately translated title.
Ok, got it out of your system? Personally, I cut the guy some slack since he spent his free time learning about Genetics and not English.
His findings were concluded as thus:
Table1 summarizes the genotoxicity profile of aspartame. A total of 24 assessments were reported in 15 articles and chromosomal aberrations tests were most often used. The percentage of positive results was nearly 55%. Considering all the data we can state that aspartame is a moderate genotoxic agent. The quantitative data on aspartame carcinogenicity in animal models are summarized in Table2. A total of 11 assessments were reported in five articles. Among them the percentage of the positive results was 73 %. Brain,prostate, breast tumors, lymphoma, leukemia, cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis and ureter, malignant schwannomas of peripheral nerves were observed in rats. Higher proportion of the positive results indicates that aspartame is most probably a carcinogenic additive to animals. In addition, in epidemiological studies the percentage of the positive results was lower than in animal models. Nearly 45 % of the existing results yielded as positive. Brain tumor, NHL, leukemia, urinary tract tumors and multiple myeloma were reported in three articles. Therefore, long-term exposure can play an important role in the development of aspartame induced cancer which is stated in the reviewed literature.
We know that human biomonitoring studies for food additives are not possible since large numbers of reasons can be responsible for the tumorogenesis, for example life style, nutritional status, stress,smoking, alcohol use, occupational exposure etc. Therefore, in vivo and in vitro tests become more important methods than epidemiological studies to test potential genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of food additives. So, consumers should be aware of the side effects of aspartame before they consume. Further genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies should be conducted to reach a clear view on its safety.
If you want to see the tables, you can go here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260131284_A_review_of_the_genotoxic_and_carcinogenic_effects_of_aspartame_does_it_safe_or_not
I know I'm bucking the trend by putting his complete conclusion here instead of cherry picking for efficacy, but oh wells. Mostly I just want to watch the ensuing nitpicking and misinterpretation while completely ignoring the overall point of the review which is that aspartame is a moderate genotoxic agent.
Now I know you're frothy, so, nitpick, defend your stance by attacking the definition of specific words and justify away. I don't mind, really.
The safety testing of aspartame has gone well beyond that required to evaluate the safety of a food additive. When all the research on aspartame, including evaluations in both the premarketing and postmarketing periods, is examined as a whole, it is clear that aspartame is safe, and there are no unresolved questions regarding its safety under conditions of intended use.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12180494
The Panel concluded that aspartame was not of safety concern at the current aspartame exposure estimates or at the ADI of 40 mg/kg bw/day. Therefore, there was no reason to revise the ADI of aspartame. Current exposures to aspartame - and its degradation product DKP - were below their respective ADIs. The ADI is not applicable to PKU patients.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3496
No significant acute or subchronic toxicity has been observed in animal models even at the highest doses of aspartame which could reasonably be administered, and humans given high doses over periods of up to 27 weeks have reported no significant adverse effects. Early concerns that aspartame might cause neurotoxicity in neonates and infants were not substantiated by subsequent experimental data.
There is no evidence to indicate that aspartame is genotoxic, either in vitro (with or without metabolic activation) or in vivo. Occasional marginal positive results have been reported, but such results only occur sporadically
and do not indicate any particular cause for concern.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/399e.pdf
Etc. etc. etc. etc....0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »All the references are listed at the bottom of the page, you may enjoy diet drinks and treats with aspartame etc. but don't say that it's healthy or it has no effect on our health, it's more dangerous than sugar...
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/01/artificial-sweeteners-raise-diabetes-risk.aspx
You know that mercola is on of the biggest spreaders of woo around right?
Have you checked the references, don't you think 'Yale journal of biology and medicine' is a trustworthy source?
The source you're referencing shows there is a correlation between artifical sweetener and sugar cravings.
This has nothing to do with whether sweetener is bad for you.
it says that 'artificial sweeteners increase your appetite as sugar does, but they re not satisfactory as natural sweeteners'.
I know no one bothers to read what's in this actual thread, but a few pages back I posted my n=1 that in 25 years of Diet Coke consumption I have never found the whole "artificial sweeteners increase your appetite" to be true. If a person does find that to be true for themselves, and doesn't have sufficient room in their calorie allotment to offset the hunger, then that may be a reason for that person to not consume diet soda. But that doesn't make artificial sweeteners "bad" or harmful and the link that has been posted nearly a dozen times which illustrates why aspartame isn't scary just continues to be ignored...
Right??!! But, no, let's keep posting crap from the internet. Ugh.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
I took a break... Now, I remember why! lol0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Sparkles_Chaos_n_Curves wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sparkles_Chaos_n_Curves wrote: »Would it not be prudent to use a little common sense here? First off anything in an unreasonable quantity is unhealthy. Things that can be considered healthy. (i.e. Water in too large of concentration flushes out the needed electrolytes in the body to get your heart to fire properly {potassium, and sodium}). A calorie is a calorie, but may not be created equal. For example. there would be calories in wood pulp of a maple tree if consumed, since it's organic material. However, the cellulose in it would not be as desirable for use to the body. It may also have a detrimental impact if it contains, natural chemicals the body is adverse to, or unable to breakdown, verses let's say the caloric value of kale. Also, an organic caloric plant source, however, the body is capable of breaking the chemical compounds down, and use them as a viable source of energy.
This is the same as saying 1 pound of fat is not equal to one pound of muscle. One pound is one pound, however, the volume of space it takes up is greater, since their molecular density is different.
Your body simply cannot properly digest cellulose (fiber). It has calories but you don't absorb them. That is not the fault of the calories though, but of your body. You could fill your gas tank with olive oil (9 kcal per gram) and it probably wouldn't do a damn thing because the car isn't made to work on oil.
The calories are all the same, the nutrients that give you them differ. Your body will use some of the fat you eat for hormone stuff and other things, and some of the protein you eat for tissue repair and growth.
But do not think that that's all your body does with them, you're very much capable of using either of them for just getting energy out of it. That's why people are able to be healthy at vastly different nutrient ratios, be that high fat, high protein, high carb or evenly distributed. The pathways your body takes to transform them may be different but in the end, it can make usable energy out of any of the food you eat as long as you're able to digest it.
You just reiterated, what I said. It isn't the fact that it's a calorie, it is how your body is able to process the chemical or components of the calorie. All viable calories are broken down in the body through digestion to turn then into amino triphosphate (ATP) for your cells to use as energy..... However, it's the ease in which the body can breakdown the components of the "calorie" that makes the "calorie" more useful to the body vs. a different molecular structure of a different "calorie". More then an anatomy physiology lesson here, and if you had very little to no education in the bodies use and breakdown of calories into essential amino acids, for cellular use. If you had basic knowledge of general nutrition and calorie choice. You should get that not all calories are the same. Would you allow your child to consume bourbon over water? The answer is not unless you are completely lacking as a parent to a point of child abuse. You would get that the chemical makeup of bourbon, is not processed by the body, or tolerated as well as water, or even soda for that matter. It isn't the calories count equality. It is the calorie's molecular make up that makes it different.
You're talking like calories are things you can touch. They're not.
The calories your body uses are simply a measurement of the energy contained within the foods. Calories don't have components. The calories are not broken down. The food is, the components of the food (carbs, fats, proteins, alcohol) are then turned into ATP through the various pathways and that ATP provides energy that we can measure in the form of calories. Your body can make ATP out of any of the digestible macronutrients.
And your water vs. bourbon example is just silly.
Once again you are reiterating what I have said. I described it in a visual way for understanding, that doesn't mean I don't understand that it is a unit of measurement and not a physical thing that can be touched. Also, FYI the point of the comparison was to be a grossly silly. It is a silly as comparing water to diet soda.0 -
So. The consensus appears to be that there is nothing at all that shows that diet soda and specifically aspartame is unhealthy or dare one suggest... bad for you.
First lets give this the common sense treatment. You don't let your pets drink it, you don't give it to your houseplants, but you're fine guzzling it all day for yourself. The human body is only up to 60% water so why would one be so foolish as to assume that replenishing that water with... water, would be the healthier option.
Frothy yet? You know you are.
Now for some science.
Diet Drink Consumption and the Risk of Cardiovascular Events:A Report from the Women’s Health Initiative - CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates an association between high diet drink intake and CVD outcomes and mortality in post-menopausal women in the WHI OS
"High diet drink intake" equates to two or more per day. The control/reference group being 0-3 per month.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269637605_Diet_Drink_Consumption_and_the_Risk_of_Cardiovascular_Events_A_Report_from_the_Women's_Health_Initiative
But I'm not a post-menopausal woman, so I'm obviously safe.
If, however, you are a member of the Kingdom Animalia, aka Metazoa for the truly hardcore, this next bit of information might be more interesting to you.
A review of the genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of aspartame: does it safe or not? - lets just all take a moment to chuckle at the meme worthiness of that horribly and hopefully inaccurately translated title.
Ok, got it out of your system? Personally, I cut the guy some slack since he spent his free time learning about Genetics and not English.
His findings were concluded as thus:
Table1 summarizes the genotoxicity profile of aspartame. A total of 24 assessments were reported in 15 articles and chromosomal aberrations tests were most often used. The percentage of positive results was nearly 55%. Considering all the data we can state that aspartame is a moderate genotoxic agent. The quantitative data on aspartame carcinogenicity in animal models are summarized in Table2. A total of 11 assessments were reported in five articles. Among them the percentage of the positive results was 73 %. Brain,prostate, breast tumors, lymphoma, leukemia, cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis and ureter, malignant schwannomas of peripheral nerves were observed in rats. Higher proportion of the positive results indicates that aspartame is most probably a carcinogenic additive to animals. In addition, in epidemiological studies the percentage of the positive results was lower than in animal models. Nearly 45 % of the existing results yielded as positive. Brain tumor, NHL, leukemia, urinary tract tumors and multiple myeloma were reported in three articles. Therefore, long-term exposure can play an important role in the development of aspartame induced cancer which is stated in the reviewed literature.
We know that human biomonitoring studies for food additives are not possible since large numbers of reasons can be responsible for the tumorogenesis, for example life style, nutritional status, stress,smoking, alcohol use, occupational exposure etc. Therefore, in vivo and in vitro tests become more important methods than epidemiological studies to test potential genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of food additives. So, consumers should be aware of the side effects of aspartame before they consume. Further genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies should be conducted to reach a clear view on its safety.
If you want to see the tables, you can go here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260131284_A_review_of_the_genotoxic_and_carcinogenic_effects_of_aspartame_does_it_safe_or_not
I know I'm bucking the trend by putting his complete conclusion here instead of cherry picking for efficacy, but oh wells. Mostly I just want to watch the ensuing nitpicking and misinterpretation while completely ignoring the overall point of the review which is that aspartame is a moderate genotoxic agent.
Now I know you're frothy, so, nitpick, defend your stance by attacking the definition of specific words and justify away. I don't mind, really.
Solid attempt, but a fail none the less.
I just picked one of the studies referenced in this article... and it took me to this table. It is saying Aspartame is a carcinogenic, yet, looking at the table closely shows that the control group that didn't have any Aspartame happened to get cancer more than the middle group...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1964906/table/t1-ehp0115-001293/
I hope that makes you wonder what other information that review left out.0 -
I echo most of what's been said. Moderation is key. It is possible to even drink too much water! Rare, but possible. Too many vegetables and/or fruit in a day and I can't stay out of the bathroom. Too much caffeine and I can't sleep. Too much sugar and my skin gets really dry. Too much of ANYTHING could end up being bad for you. Water is important, so make sure you're getting some of that, but an occasional diet soda will not sabotage you. Just know that some people are triggered by anything with a sweet taste and it can cause them to binge on unhealthy stuff. Only you can figure out if that is the case for you. I personally think we all have a trigger of some kind (mine's carbs, especially mashed potatoes!); we just each have to figure out what it is. I think in the end a balanced diet of real food (not processed crap) with an occasional treat thrown in is what's best for us.0
-
-
So. The consensus appears to be that there is nothing at all that shows that diet soda and specifically aspartame is unhealthy or dare one suggest... bad for you.
First lets give this the common sense treatment. You don't let your pets drink it, you don't give it to your houseplants, but you're fine guzzling it all day for yourself. The human body is only up to 60% water so why would one be so foolish as to assume that replenishing that water with... water, would be the healthier option.
I'm going to stop you here. Opening with an insult to the posters is never a good way to get people to listen to you.
Also, no, I don't give diet sodas to my pets or plants, mainly because they are expensive, and I work hard for my money and spend enough of it on my spoiled pets without giving them my diet sodas. Those are for my own personal enjoyment and I drink them in moderation as part of my healthy diet. I also drink water, tea, coffee, beer, wine, milk, and orange juice in moderation, none of which I'd give to my pets/plants for monetary reasons. I'm not dehydrated or dying, thank you.
0 -
Sparkles_Chaos_n_Curves wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sparkles_Chaos_n_Curves wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sparkles_Chaos_n_Curves wrote: »Would it not be prudent to use a little common sense here? First off anything in an unreasonable quantity is unhealthy. Things that can be considered healthy. (i.e. Water in too large of concentration flushes out the needed electrolytes in the body to get your heart to fire properly {potassium, and sodium}). A calorie is a calorie, but may not be created equal. For example. there would be calories in wood pulp of a maple tree if consumed, since it's organic material. However, the cellulose in it would not be as desirable for use to the body. It may also have a detrimental impact if it contains, natural chemicals the body is adverse to, or unable to breakdown, verses let's say the caloric value of kale. Also, an organic caloric plant source, however, the body is capable of breaking the chemical compounds down, and use them as a viable source of energy.
This is the same as saying 1 pound of fat is not equal to one pound of muscle. One pound is one pound, however, the volume of space it takes up is greater, since their molecular density is different.
Your body simply cannot properly digest cellulose (fiber). It has calories but you don't absorb them. That is not the fault of the calories though, but of your body. You could fill your gas tank with olive oil (9 kcal per gram) and it probably wouldn't do a damn thing because the car isn't made to work on oil.
The calories are all the same, the nutrients that give you them differ. Your body will use some of the fat you eat for hormone stuff and other things, and some of the protein you eat for tissue repair and growth.
But do not think that that's all your body does with them, you're very much capable of using either of them for just getting energy out of it. That's why people are able to be healthy at vastly different nutrient ratios, be that high fat, high protein, high carb or evenly distributed. The pathways your body takes to transform them may be different but in the end, it can make usable energy out of any of the food you eat as long as you're able to digest it.
You just reiterated, what I said. It isn't the fact that it's a calorie, it is how your body is able to process the chemical or components of the calorie. All viable calories are broken down in the body through digestion to turn then into amino triphosphate (ATP) for your cells to use as energy..... However, it's the ease in which the body can breakdown the components of the "calorie" that makes the "calorie" more useful to the body vs. a different molecular structure of a different "calorie". More then an anatomy physiology lesson here, and if you had very little to no education in the bodies use and breakdown of calories into essential amino acids, for cellular use. If you had basic knowledge of general nutrition and calorie choice. You should get that not all calories are the same. Would you allow your child to consume bourbon over water? The answer is not unless you are completely lacking as a parent to a point of child abuse. You would get that the chemical makeup of bourbon, is not processed by the body, or tolerated as well as water, or even soda for that matter. It isn't the calories count equality. It is the calorie's molecular make up that makes it different.
You're talking like calories are things you can touch. They're not.
The calories your body uses are simply a measurement of the energy contained within the foods. Calories don't have components. The calories are not broken down. The food is, the components of the food (carbs, fats, proteins, alcohol) are then turned into ATP through the various pathways and that ATP provides energy that we can measure in the form of calories. Your body can make ATP out of any of the digestible macronutrients.
And your water vs. bourbon example is just silly.
Once again you are reiterating what I have said. I described it in a visual way for understanding, that doesn't mean I don't understand that it is a unit of measurement and not a physical thing that can be touched. Also, FYI the point of the comparison was to be a grossly silly. It is a silly as comparing water to diet soda.
Your comparison didn't even make sense from a calorie standpoint because alcohol has 7 calories per gram where water has 0. Alcohol is also a drug, a very delicious drug that is socially accepted and fine in moderate quantities, but still a drug. Aspartame is not.
That whole thing is just completely out of left field as much as if I told you "You think mushrooms are good for you? Think again. This is a death cap. Would you feed your children that, huh would you?"
Or saying vegetables are bad for you because cats can't eat them because they're carnivorous.
Diet soda is 99% water. The rest is some carbonation, coloring, sweeteners, phosphoric acid and flavors.
Aspartame is a protein made up of two amino acids you will find in almost every protein source in 10 times higher amounts.
So please tell me what is so horrible about it.0 -
So. The consensus appears to be that there is nothing at all that shows that diet soda and specifically aspartame is unhealthy or dare one suggest... bad for you.
First lets give this the common sense treatment. You don't let your pets drink it, you don't give it to your houseplants, but you're fine guzzling it all day for yourself. The human body is only up to 60% water so why would one be so foolish as to assume that replenishing that water with... water, would be the healthier option.
Frothy yet? You know you are.
Now for some science.
Diet Drink Consumption and the Risk of Cardiovascular Events:A Report from the Women’s Health Initiative - CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates an association between high diet drink intake and CVD outcomes and mortality in post-menopausal women in the WHI OS
"High diet drink intake" equates to two or more per day. The control/reference group being 0-3 per month.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269637605_Diet_Drink_Consumption_and_the_Risk_of_Cardiovascular_Events_A_Report_from_the_Women's_Health_Initiative
But I'm not a post-menopausal woman, so I'm obviously safe.
If, however, you are a member of the Kingdom Animalia, aka Metazoa for the truly hardcore, this next bit of information might be more interesting to you.
A review of the genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of aspartame: does it safe or not? - lets just all take a moment to chuckle at the meme worthiness of that horribly and hopefully inaccurately translated title.
Ok, got it out of your system? Personally, I cut the guy some slack since he spent his free time learning about Genetics and not English.
His findings were concluded as thus:
Table1 summarizes the genotoxicity profile of aspartame. A total of 24 assessments were reported in 15 articles and chromosomal aberrations tests were most often used. The percentage of positive results was nearly 55%. Considering all the data we can state that aspartame is a moderate genotoxic agent. The quantitative data on aspartame carcinogenicity in animal models are summarized in Table2. A total of 11 assessments were reported in five articles. Among them the percentage of the positive results was 73 %. Brain,prostate, breast tumors, lymphoma, leukemia, cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis and ureter, malignant schwannomas of peripheral nerves were observed in rats. Higher proportion of the positive results indicates that aspartame is most probably a carcinogenic additive to animals. In addition, in epidemiological studies the percentage of the positive results was lower than in animal models. Nearly 45 % of the existing results yielded as positive. Brain tumor, NHL, leukemia, urinary tract tumors and multiple myeloma were reported in three articles. Therefore, long-term exposure can play an important role in the development of aspartame induced cancer which is stated in the reviewed literature.
We know that human biomonitoring studies for food additives are not possible since large numbers of reasons can be responsible for the tumorogenesis, for example life style, nutritional status, stress,smoking, alcohol use, occupational exposure etc. Therefore, in vivo and in vitro tests become more important methods than epidemiological studies to test potential genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of food additives. So, consumers should be aware of the side effects of aspartame before they consume. Further genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies should be conducted to reach a clear view on its safety.
If you want to see the tables, you can go here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260131284_A_review_of_the_genotoxic_and_carcinogenic_effects_of_aspartame_does_it_safe_or_not
I know I'm bucking the trend by putting his complete conclusion here instead of cherry picking for efficacy, but oh wells. Mostly I just want to watch the ensuing nitpicking and misinterpretation while completely ignoring the overall point of the review which is that aspartame is a moderate genotoxic agent.
Now I know you're frothy, so, nitpick, defend your stance by attacking the definition of specific words and justify away. I don't mind, really.
Given the insults and the clear frustration in your post, maybe you should worry more about your "froth" than the "froth" you imagine will be coming your way from others.0 -
Grapes and raisins kill dogs too. I guess thoseust be unhealthy
0 -
This thread is why we can't have nice things!0
-
So. The consensus appears to be that there is nothing at all that shows that diet soda and specifically aspartame is unhealthy or dare one suggest... bad for you.
First lets give this the common sense treatment. You don't let your pets drink it, you don't give it to your houseplants, but you're fine guzzling it all day for yourself. The human body is only up to 60% water so why would one be so foolish as to assume that replenishing that water with... water, would be the healthier option.
Frothy yet? You know you are.
People give fertilizer (fecal matter) to plants. You're cool with consuming that by your common sense?
Actually, if you don't consume anything you wouldn't give to a houseplant, why are you even alive? Nothing from your picture lunch the other day is something I'd try to shove on a houseplant.0 -
So. The consensus appears to be that there is nothing at all that shows that diet soda and specifically aspartame is unhealthy or dare one suggest... bad for you.
First lets give this the common sense treatment. You don't let your pets drink it, you don't give it to your houseplants, but you're fine guzzling it all day for yourself. The human body is only up to 60% water so why would one be so foolish as to assume that replenishing that water with... water, would be the healthier option.
Frothy yet? You know you are.
Way to completely ignore context and dosage. Well done.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »CasperNaegle wrote: »from calorie perspective sure.. but even with calories not all are as healthy as others..
So, would the calories in 0 calorie water be more or less healthy than the calories in 0 calorie soda?
I lol'd0 -
I have been diet soft drink free for 2 weeks now and haven't lost a pound! All I've had is water. Normal?0
-
I have been diet soft drink free for 2 weeks now and haven't lost a pound! All I've had is water. Normal?
Irrelevant data point without considering the context of the rest of your diet. Diet sodas have zero calories, water has zero calories, so the tradeoff is nil. If you haven't lost a pound, you're not in a caloric deficit - but that's a different topic for a different thread.0 -
-
Diet coke triggers my appetite, and I always go over by 200-300 calories on a day I have a Diet Coke.0
-
Obviously diet soda is fine, but jesus christ it comes off in this thread as if they're inter-changable liquids0
-
auntiebabs wrote: »Diet coke triggers my appetite, and I always go over by 200-300 calories on a day I have a Diet Coke.
Does absolutely nothing to my appetite either way, and I drink (on average) one can every day. Has absolutely zero effect upon my appetite or ability to maintain a deficit.0 -
Yes if you are only going by the calories. The diet pop is still crap going into your body.0
-
allaboutthefood wrote: »Yes if you are only going by the calories. The diet pop is still crap going into your body.
Have you tried diet A&W root beer? The bomb0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Has anyone seen those videos where they por Reg. Coke on a car battery and it eats away the corrosion? -that's a little pass fear mongering....WIll Diet coke do they same thing, just eat our insides out.
Have you seen what happens when you pour water+baking soda on a car battery? The corrosion is eaten away. Are you going to stop drinking water and eating bread?
It's even worse than that. Have you seen the Grand Canyon? Water did that. Imagine what 64 ounces a day (the bare minimum recommendation of those who argue that all hydration must come from unadulterated water), consumed day in and day out, week after week, year after year, will do to your insides, if it can dig a hole that size in the earth. (shudder)0 -
It's the same but it's not the same on your intestines. I don't eat fast food but it's like me saying that if I eat a burger from mc Donald's of 500+ calories than its the same as if I was to eat my wild caught fish burrito of 500+ calories. Calories are the same bit ingredients are definitely not. Remember, you are what you eat. Always enjoy your meals spiritualy and physically
Nicely said.
0 -
bclarke1990 wrote: »Obviously diet soda is fine, but jesus christ it comes off in this thread as if they're inter-changable liquids
Diet soda is over 90% just water. It's just water with flavor, nothing more. It's not some mysterious liquid that's not made out of water.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »It's the same but it's not the same on your intestines. I don't eat fast food but it's like me saying that if I eat a burger from mc Donald's of 500+ calories than its the same as if I was to eat my wild caught fish burrito of 500+ calories. Calories are the same bit ingredients are definitely not. Remember, you are what you eat. Always enjoy your meals spiritualy and physically
Your body has no "fast food detector". Everything you eat simply gets taken apart into its components.
The burger is starch carbs from the bun, some fiber and sugars from the lettuce, tomatos etc. protein and fat from the meat, some sugar and whatever from the sauce.
The burrito has starch carbs from the wrap thing, some fiber and sugars from whatever veggies are in it, protein and fat from the fish, if there's sauce in it sugar and stuff.
The fast food burger will have preservatives and additives that ruin your body, the meat won't be from a grass fed cow adding to the strain.
Water flushed out toxins from your body. Zero calorie coke adds them back in, causes bloating and digestive issues.
Eating highly processed food made in a factory by scientists whose purpose is to get you addicted to their "food" does not do the same thing to your body as eating fresh real food, even if the calories are the same.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions