diet pop?

Options
123468

Replies

  • blues4miles
    blues4miles Posts: 1,481 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    I could just as easily say I have scientific proof that Elvis and Bigfoot are eating peanut butter and banana sandwiches together in Atlantis, but the studies are in this super-secret database that I can't share with anybody and citing them would be a copyright violation, so you'll just have to take my word for it..

    I would believe it...
    1) Peanut butter and banana sandwiches are delicious...ergo of course Bigfoot & Elvis would consume them
    2) Atlantis did not have diet soda...ipso facto that's where Bigfoot and Elvis would go to be safe from the chemikills.
    3) I googled Bigfoot and Elvis and Atlantis and I get a lot of conflicting information, so you know, maybe people should just make up their own minds! Maybe they are there are people are just being swayed by the big government lackies! Who certified Elvis's death? A county medical examiner that's right, a government employee. Who states there's no evidence for Bigfoot? Primatologists? Scientists? Pft what do they know, we all know the government funds most of their studies and has a clear anti-Bigfoot bias.
  • biggsterjackster
    biggsterjackster Posts: 419 Member
    Options
    If you don't experience any health issues, enjoy. I can't drink any kind of diet soda, my belly gets very bloated and I feel like crap. No problems with regular soda.

  • LivLovLrn
    LivLovLrn Posts: 577 Member
    Options
    Here is a link to one of many articles that look at the research regarding diet sodas....I chose one that doesn't have a bunch of scientific language to wade through, so please don't think it is just another blog....
    http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-there-a-link-between-diet-soda-and-heart-disease-201202214296
  • daynaxxanne
    daynaxxanne Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    Diet soda has things added to it so that suddenly the calories are lower and its supposedly "better" for you. However some of the things in diet soda are actually worse for your body. Things like aspartame, used in many diet sodas and things like gum, are actually more harmful to your body than sugar is. Aspartame was originally developed as a drug but when they realized it tasted sweet, they skipped some steps and started selling it as a food item. That being said, soda is bad for you diet or not.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Options
    Diet soda has things added to it so that suddenly the calories are lower and its supposedly "better" for you. However some of the things in diet soda are actually worse for your body. Things like aspartame, used in many diet sodas and things like gum, are actually more harmful to your body than sugar is. Aspartame was originally developed as a drug but when they realized it tasted sweet, they skipped some steps and started selling it as a food item. That being said, soda is bad for you diet or not.

    Nope.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1
  • Brin1956
    Brin1956 Posts: 168 Member
    Options
    As a diabetic I love my diet pop. It is the one sweet thing I can have. It works to reduce the craving for sweets in my life. It is hard on your teeth and you should not brush your teeth right after drinking pop. Yes they have proven that it will soften the enamel on your teeth but it is temporary.

    It is important to drink your fluids everyday whether they are water or pop. The people that say pop is bad for you sometimes are drinking 15+ cups of coffee a day. Which one is worse for you? People find something that doesn't interfere with their lifestyle and then they can preach like crazy. For me diet pop is staying in my life. down 52 lbs already. Everything causes cancer if not consumed in moderation.
  • MommyMeggo
    MommyMeggo Posts: 1,222 Member
    Options
    LivLovLrn wrote: »
    Here is a link to one of many articles that look at the research regarding diet sodas....I chose one that doesn't have a bunch of scientific language to wade through, so please don't think it is just another blog....
    http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-there-a-link-between-diet-soda-and-heart-disease-201202214296

    But...it is a blog?
  • biggsterjackster
    biggsterjackster Posts: 419 Member
    Options
    Diet soda has things added to it so that suddenly the calories are lower and its supposedly "better" for you. However some of the things in diet soda are actually worse for your body. Things like aspartame, used in many diet sodas and things like gum, are actually more harmful to your body than sugar is. Aspartame was originally developed as a drug but when they realized it tasted sweet, they skipped some steps and started selling it as a food item. That being said, soda is bad for you diet or not.

    Nope.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1

    Yes, it is bad for some people.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Options
    Diet soda has things added to it so that suddenly the calories are lower and its supposedly "better" for you. However some of the things in diet soda are actually worse for your body. Things like aspartame, used in many diet sodas and things like gum, are actually more harmful to your body than sugar is. Aspartame was originally developed as a drug but when they realized it tasted sweet, they skipped some steps and started selling it as a food item. That being said, soda is bad for you diet or not.

    Nope.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1

    Yes, it is bad for some people.

    If you believe aspartame causes you some kind of problem, then by all means, avoid it.

    Doesn't mean you should then go and spread misinformation on a forum where people are trying to learn.
  • biggsterjackster
    biggsterjackster Posts: 419 Member
    Options
    Diet soda has things added to it so that suddenly the calories are lower and its supposedly "better" for you. However some of the things in diet soda are actually worse for your body. Things like aspartame, used in many diet sodas and things like gum, are actually more harmful to your body than sugar is. Aspartame was originally developed as a drug but when they realized it tasted sweet, they skipped some steps and started selling it as a food item. That being said, soda is bad for you diet or not.

    Nope.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1

    Yes, it is bad for some people.

    If you believe aspartame causes you some kind of problem, then by all means, avoid it.

    Doesn't mean you should then go and spread misinformation on a forum where people are trying to learn.
    Exactly, that's why it is bad to say: Diet soda is good or bad. Some people have health issues drinking it, others are perfectly fine with it.
  • missyfitz1
    missyfitz1 Posts: 93 Member
    Options
    LBuehrle8 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    Lol - typical and predictable.

    Yes y'all are :) The first point of quality of food vs calories in/out is in MFP's own blog.. https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/2-science-backed-strategies-to-avoid-long-term-weight-gain/ See if you can you access it since it is a Premium member's perk.
    Another talk about pesticide, artificial and chemical attributes of poor health (this is relative to children in the original article) gave these studies references.
    • "Pediatrics"; Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Urinary Metabolites of Organophosphate Pesticides; Maryse Bouchard, et al.; Jun 2010
    • "Environmental Health Perspectives"; Dietary Intake and Its Contribution to Longitudinal Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure in Urban/Suburban Children; Chensheng Lu, et al.; Apr 2008
    • "American Journal of Epidemiology"; Parkinson's Disease and Residential Exposure to Maneb and Paraquat from Agricultural Applications in the Central Valley of California; Sadie Costello, et al.; Apr 15 2009
    • "International Journal of Cancer"; Processed Meat Consumption, Dietary Nitrosamines and Stomach Cancer Risk in a Cohort of Swedish Women; Susanna Larsson, et al.; Aug 15 2006
    • Center For Science in the Public Interest; Fda Urged to Prohibit Carcinogenic "Caramel Coloring"; February 16 2011
    I really have better things to do than debate and just this proves the general American population isn't ready to hear these things until they are diagnosed with a disease or ailment that could have been avoided. No harm, no foul on my part. I don't get all up in arms and pissed to the point of hateful attacks and snarky comments on someone for their input. I didn't condemn anyone for choosing it either. Oh and on the ridiculous comment about a banana having chemicals in the breakdown...someone had to name the compositions. I don't recall a scientist being able to create a banana from chemicals only. :) I sure as heck wouldn't eat it if they could.
    For those that have 'nutrition' certification should really know better and be an example of a student always willing to learn for the benefit of the public. Science is not perfect and studies are continually recanted as progress is made. If I am proven wrong on any stance, that is fine...I will continue to side on the conservative side of caution. Why? I have watched my mother be sucked into the diabetic and heart disease 'treatment' propaganda; by taking their pills and eat all the processed crap they pushed out as 'diabetic friendly' and sugar-free. Twelve years ago, she died on the operating table, with surgeons trying to fix her heart. My father has battled the same ailment as well as colon cancer. Both of which he beat and still living at 80. So don't even tell me my views are bull@*^$. I have nothing more to say and thanks for welcoming me (not) into the community. I will not be wasting my time here. And if you construe this as mad as hell, it isn't; but I am passionate about what I (and my children) have lost...Mom/Grammy. I can't get her back and I can't turn back time. If you still have yours, please go tell her you love her. Then feed her a natural, organic meal :)

    So you're completely biased by the bad luck that struck you and would believe anything that goes against the established, 30+ years in the making body of evidence. Cool.

    This.

    And why does disagreeing and or asking for evidence to back up what you're saying always become "hateful attacks" or "snarky"?? I will never understand that.

    I am right there with you @LBuehrle8. I think the claims that anything in this thread has been snarky, a hateful attack or a "slap fight" are ridiculous. Responses have been completely rational and unemotional.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Options
    Diet soda has things added to it so that suddenly the calories are lower and its supposedly "better" for you. However some of the things in diet soda are actually worse for your body. Things like aspartame, used in many diet sodas and things like gum, are actually more harmful to your body than sugar is. Aspartame was originally developed as a drug but when they realized it tasted sweet, they skipped some steps and started selling it as a food item. That being said, soda is bad for you diet or not.

    Nope.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1

    Yes, it is bad for some people.

    If you believe aspartame causes you some kind of problem, then by all means, avoid it.

    Doesn't mean you should then go and spread misinformation on a forum where people are trying to learn.
    Exactly, that's why it is bad to say: Diet soda is good or bad. Some people have health issues drinking it, others are perfectly fine with it.

    No one has said it is "good or bad", except for the people coming into this thread to fear-monger about chemikillz and aspartame. I myself have said that it's a neutral food.

    It's preferable over regular soda to diabetics for obvious reasons and preferable over regular soda for people who are trying to cut their calories and still want to enjoy soda. Because soda is tasty, and there is nothing wrong with it.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    Diet soda has things added to it so that suddenly the calories are lower and its supposedly "better" for you. However some of the things in diet soda are actually worse for your body. Things like aspartame, used in many diet sodas and things like gum, are actually more harmful to your body than sugar is. Aspartame was originally developed as a drug but when they realized it tasted sweet, they skipped some steps and started selling it as a food item. That being said, soda is bad for you diet or not.

    Nope.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1

    Yes, it is bad for some people.

    People with PKU, who because of the PKU also cannot eat all that much protein because phenylanine is an amino acid found in most protein sources. Is protein bad?
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    Hornsby wrote: »

    Lol - typical and predictable.

    Yes y'all are :) The first point of quality of food vs calories in/out is in MFP's own blog.. https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/2-science-backed-strategies-to-avoid-long-term-weight-gain/ See if you can you access it since it is a Premium member's perk.
    Another talk about pesticide, artificial and chemical attributes of poor health (this is relative to children in the original article) gave these studies references.
    • "Pediatrics"; Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Urinary Metabolites of Organophosphate Pesticides; Maryse Bouchard, et al.; Jun 2010
    • "Environmental Health Perspectives"; Dietary Intake and Its Contribution to Longitudinal Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure in Urban/Suburban Children; Chensheng Lu, et al.; Apr 2008
    • "American Journal of Epidemiology"; Parkinson's Disease and Residential Exposure to Maneb and Paraquat from Agricultural Applications in the Central Valley of California; Sadie Costello, et al.; Apr 15 2009
    • "International Journal of Cancer"; Processed Meat Consumption, Dietary Nitrosamines and Stomach Cancer Risk in a Cohort of Swedish Women; Susanna Larsson, et al.; Aug 15 2006
    • Center For Science in the Public Interest; Fda Urged to Prohibit Carcinogenic "Caramel Coloring"; February 16 2011
    I really have better things to do than debate and just this proves the general American population isn't ready to hear these things until they are diagnosed with a disease or ailment that could have been avoided. No harm, no foul on my part. I don't get all up in arms and pissed to the point of hateful attacks and snarky comments on someone for their input. I didn't condemn anyone for choosing it either. Oh and on the ridiculous comment about a banana having chemicals in the breakdown...someone had to name the compositions. I don't recall a scientist being able to create a banana from chemicals only. :) I sure as heck wouldn't eat it if they could.
    For those that have 'nutrition' certification should really know better and be an example of a student always willing to learn for the benefit of the public. Science is not perfect and studies are continually recanted as progress is made. If I am proven wrong on any stance, that is fine...I will continue to side on the conservative side of caution. Why? I have watched my mother be sucked into the diabetic and heart disease 'treatment' propaganda; by taking their pills and eat all the processed crap they pushed out as 'diabetic friendly' and sugar-free. Twelve years ago, she died on the operating table, with surgeons trying to fix her heart. My father has battled the same ailment as well as colon cancer. Both of which he beat and still living at 80. So don't even tell me my views are bull@*^$. I have nothing more to say and thanks for welcoming me (not) into the community. I will not be wasting my time here. And if you construe this as mad as hell, it isn't; but I am passionate about what I (and my children) have lost...Mom/Grammy. I can't get her back and I can't turn back time. If you still have yours, please go tell her you love her. Then feed her a natural, organic meal :)

    So you're completely biased by the bad luck that struck you and would believe anything that goes against the established, 30+ years in the making body of evidence. Cool.

    To be fair, I wouldn't eat the science created banana either. Though in my case that would be consistent with not eating natural bananas either.
    If two foods were molecularly the same, I don't see how you'd know which is which to refuse eating them. That someone inherently thinks there would be a difference says something of their understanding of chemistry.
  • aub6689
    aub6689 Posts: 351 Member
    edited March 2016
    Options
    There is a mass media scare on artificial sweeteners, but as an epidemiologist working in diet and chronic disease etiology (because someone wanted to know what 'science' people work in), I can say there is a lot of media misinterpretation of the current science on these subjects.
    Moreover, many people put artificial sweeteners in one category when they are chemically quite different so any blanket 'artificial sweeteners cause...' statement is not valid.
    While some large scale cohort studies have shown that a correlation between obesity or cvd and diet drinks--this is a 'chicken or the egg' argument, because you can reasonably argue that obesity or other risk factors (like diabetes or higher fasting glucose) came first and led to an increase in diet drink consumption.
    Many animal models have demonized artificial sweeteners in rats and mice and these results are published and scare people, but animal studies can't be extrapolated to humans and often times the dosage equivalent isn't plausible. An example is when saccharin caused bladder cancer in laboratory rats so there were warning labels before we recognized this relationship didn't exist in humans.
    There are some really interesting studies showing that there may be evidence that some sweeteners have antibacterial properties and therefore may alter the microbiota in the gut. While this is interesting and should be studied, we need to know how or what this altering actually causes before we incite panic.
    A past professor of mine is working on research about insulin response to different sweeteners and their results are inconclusive.
    People need to start asking themselves more questions even with peer reviewed scientific studies. We are finding more and more that the results of many of these studies cannot be replicated. These tests allow for error, diet is immensely hard to assess in real life and most things we are looking for are not attributable to one variable, but multiple.

    I say drink your diet soda until there is evidence from multiple sources that suggests the specific sweetener you are consuming, at the amount you are consuming, is harmful
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    senecarr wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    Lol - typical and predictable.

    Yes y'all are :) The first point of quality of food vs calories in/out is in MFP's own blog.. https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/2-science-backed-strategies-to-avoid-long-term-weight-gain/ See if you can you access it since it is a Premium member's perk.
    Another talk about pesticide, artificial and chemical attributes of poor health (this is relative to children in the original article) gave these studies references.
    • "Pediatrics"; Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Urinary Metabolites of Organophosphate Pesticides; Maryse Bouchard, et al.; Jun 2010
    • "Environmental Health Perspectives"; Dietary Intake and Its Contribution to Longitudinal Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure in Urban/Suburban Children; Chensheng Lu, et al.; Apr 2008
    • "American Journal of Epidemiology"; Parkinson's Disease and Residential Exposure to Maneb and Paraquat from Agricultural Applications in the Central Valley of California; Sadie Costello, et al.; Apr 15 2009
    • "International Journal of Cancer"; Processed Meat Consumption, Dietary Nitrosamines and Stomach Cancer Risk in a Cohort of Swedish Women; Susanna Larsson, et al.; Aug 15 2006
    • Center For Science in the Public Interest; Fda Urged to Prohibit Carcinogenic "Caramel Coloring"; February 16 2011
    I really have better things to do than debate and just this proves the general American population isn't ready to hear these things until they are diagnosed with a disease or ailment that could have been avoided. No harm, no foul on my part. I don't get all up in arms and pissed to the point of hateful attacks and snarky comments on someone for their input. I didn't condemn anyone for choosing it either. Oh and on the ridiculous comment about a banana having chemicals in the breakdown...someone had to name the compositions. I don't recall a scientist being able to create a banana from chemicals only. :) I sure as heck wouldn't eat it if they could.
    For those that have 'nutrition' certification should really know better and be an example of a student always willing to learn for the benefit of the public. Science is not perfect and studies are continually recanted as progress is made. If I am proven wrong on any stance, that is fine...I will continue to side on the conservative side of caution. Why? I have watched my mother be sucked into the diabetic and heart disease 'treatment' propaganda; by taking their pills and eat all the processed crap they pushed out as 'diabetic friendly' and sugar-free. Twelve years ago, she died on the operating table, with surgeons trying to fix her heart. My father has battled the same ailment as well as colon cancer. Both of which he beat and still living at 80. So don't even tell me my views are bull@*^$. I have nothing more to say and thanks for welcoming me (not) into the community. I will not be wasting my time here. And if you construe this as mad as hell, it isn't; but I am passionate about what I (and my children) have lost...Mom/Grammy. I can't get her back and I can't turn back time. If you still have yours, please go tell her you love her. Then feed her a natural, organic meal :)

    So you're completely biased by the bad luck that struck you and would believe anything that goes against the established, 30+ years in the making body of evidence. Cool.

    To be fair, I wouldn't eat the science created banana either. Though in my case that would be consistent with not eating natural bananas either.
    If two foods were molecularly the same, I don't see how you'd know which is which to refuse eating them. That someone inherently thinks there would be a difference says something of their understanding of chemistry.

    That makes me remember, I've got a friend who gets dizzy and loses consciousness when he eats bananas for some reason. I am not gonna go around and tell people bananas are dangerous because of that though.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    Diet soda has things added to it so that suddenly the calories are lower and its supposedly "better" for you. However some of the things in diet soda are actually worse for your body. Things like aspartame, used in many diet sodas and things like gum, are actually more harmful to your body than sugar is. Aspartame was originally developed as a drug but when they realized it tasted sweet, they skipped some steps and started selling it as a food item. That being said, soda is bad for you diet or not.

    So you don't take any drugs, not even Ibuprofen, because they were developed as a drug?
  • TheBlindTigress
    TheBlindTigress Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    Hornsby wrote: »

    Lol - typical and predictable.

    Yes y'all are :) The first point of quality of food vs calories in/out is in MFP's own blog.. https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/2-science-backed-strategies-to-avoid-long-term-weight-gain/ See if you can you access it since it is a Premium member's perk.
    Another talk about pesticide, artificial and chemical attributes of poor health (this is relative to children in the original article) gave these studies references.
    • "Pediatrics"; Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Urinary Metabolites of Organophosphate Pesticides; Maryse Bouchard, et al.; Jun 2010
    • "Environmental Health Perspectives"; Dietary Intake and Its Contribution to Longitudinal Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure in Urban/Suburban Children; Chensheng Lu, et al.; Apr 2008
    • "American Journal of Epidemiology"; Parkinson's Disease and Residential Exposure to Maneb and Paraquat from Agricultural Applications in the Central Valley of California; Sadie Costello, et al.; Apr 15 2009
    • "International Journal of Cancer"; Processed Meat Consumption, Dietary Nitrosamines and Stomach Cancer Risk in a Cohort of Swedish Women; Susanna Larsson, et al.; Aug 15 2006
    • Center For Science in the Public Interest; Fda Urged to Prohibit Carcinogenic "Caramel Coloring"; February 16 2011
    I really have better things to do than debate and just this proves the general American population isn't ready to hear these things until they are diagnosed with a disease or ailment that could have been avoided. No harm, no foul on my part. I don't get all up in arms and pissed to the point of hateful attacks and snarky comments on someone for their input. I didn't condemn anyone for choosing it either. Oh and on the ridiculous comment about a banana having chemicals in the breakdown...someone had to name the compositions. I don't recall a scientist being able to create a banana from chemicals only. :) I sure as heck wouldn't eat it if they could.
    For those that have 'nutrition' certification should really know better and be an example of a student always willing to learn for the benefit of the public. Science is not perfect and studies are continually recanted as progress is made. If I am proven wrong on any stance, that is fine...I will continue to side on the conservative side of caution. Why? I have watched my mother be sucked into the diabetic and heart disease 'treatment' propaganda; by taking their pills and eat all the processed crap they pushed out as 'diabetic friendly' and sugar-free. Twelve years ago, she died on the operating table, with surgeons trying to fix her heart. My father has battled the same ailment as well as colon cancer. Both of which he beat and still living at 80. So don't even tell me my views are bull@*^$. I have nothing more to say and thanks for welcoming me (not) into the community. I will not be wasting my time here. And if you construe this as mad as hell, it isn't; but I am passionate about what I (and my children) have lost...Mom/Grammy. I can't get her back and I can't turn back time. If you still have yours, please go tell her you love her. Then feed her a natural, organic meal :)

    All right, I'll bite.

    First article is about Glycemic Load and protein intake of various kinds and their association with weight loss. The words "Soda" or "pop" do not occur in the article at all, and only in the comments below. Irrelevant to the discussion.

    Second study - A study on organophosphate exposure on incidence of ADHD in children 8-15 years of age. Again, the words "soda" or "pop" were not mentioned in the entirety. The study did not relate to any artificial sweeteners and instead measured detected organophosphate levels, specifically in frozen fruit and vegetables. Irrelevant to the discussion.

    Third study - Yet another study on organophosphate exposure and its effects on children, this one specifically urban and suburban. Basically, the conclusions were that the major exposure of organophosphates in children were through dietary intake and that an organic, seasonal diet of fresh fruits and vegetables lowered urinary metabolites of organophosphates. Again, no mention of diet sodas or artificial sweeteners. Irrelevant to the discussion.

    Fourth study - a study of the effect of specific fungicide and pesticide exposure on the prevalence of parkinson's disease, specifically on the region of the California Central Valley. This study has more to do with the prevalence of parkinson's in rural farmers and their children in that specific geographical area. No mention of artificial sweeteners or soda. Irrelevant to the discussion.

    Fifth study - A study on somach cancer relation to processed meat consumption in Swedish women. Diet soda is not processed meat. Irrelevant to the discussion.

    Sixth study - Tangentially related, in that it discusses carcinogenic compounds possibly present in "caramel coloring" used in sodas. Further research reveals the following quote from the FDA:

    "FDA spokesman Douglas Karas wrote in a statement that the FDA is currently reviewing the CSPI petition, but 'it is important to understand that a consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents.'"

    The study conducted by the NTP showed inconclusive on rats, and an increase in certain lung tumors in mice, both conducted at levels well exceeding anything a human would reasonably consume. The European Food Safety Authority has also determined that there is no cancer risk related with currently feasible caramel coloring consumption.

    So...Out of six studies, only one was even close to related to this topic, and it concerns intake of a certain chemical hundreds of times greater than is realistic for human consumption. Nice try, thanks for playing.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Options
    aub6689 wrote: »
    There is a mass media scare on artificial sweeteners, but as an epidemiologist working in diet and chronic disease etiology (because someone wanted to know what 'science' people work in), I can say there is a lot of media misinterpretation of the current science on these subjects.
    Moreover, many people put artificial sweeteners in one category when they are chemically quite different so any blanket 'artificial sweeteners cause...' statement is not valid.
    While some large scale cohort studies have shown that a correlation between obesity and diet drinks--this is a 'chicken or the egg' argument, because you can reasonably argue that obesity came first and led to an increase in diet drink consumption.
    Many animal models have demonized artificial sweeteners in rats and mice and these results are published and scare people, but animal studies can't be extrapolated to humans and often times the dosage equivalent isn't plausible. An example is when saccharin caused bladder cancer in laboratory rats so there were warning labels before we recognized this relationship didn't exist in humans.
    There are some really interesting studies showing that there may be evidence that some sweeteners have antibacterial properties and therefore may alter the microbiota in the gut. While this is interesting and should be studied, we need to know how or what this altering actually causes before we incite panic.
    A past professor of mine is working on research about insulin response to different sweeteners and there results are inconclusive.
    People need to start asking themselves more questions even with peer reviewed scientific studies. We are finding more and more that the results of many of these studies cannot be replicated. These tests allow for error, diet is immensely hard to assess in real life and most things we are looking for are not attributable to one variable, but multiple.

    I say drink your diet soda until there is evidence from multiple sources that suggests the specific sweetener you are consuming, at the amount you are consuming, is harmful

    Thank you for articulating what I've been thinking in a very calm and thorough way. You, m'lady, deserve a round of applause.

    Unfortunately, many will either a) not read it or b)call you a shill. :lol:
  • aub6689
    aub6689 Posts: 351 Member
    Options
    @Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Thanks! I'm glad someone read it at least. :)