Diet Cokes ?

ogtmama · November 2016

z4oslo wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

z4oslo wrote: »

pinkste78 wrote: »

Do diet cokes hinder weight loss in any way other than make you hungrier ? They don't make me more hungry, even though there has been studies that say they do. I just want to know what do regular people who have lost weight think about them.Thanks !

Is diet coke bad for you?

In all honesty, I dont know. I drink my diet coke daily, but im trying to reduce it. (in the past i would drink 1-2 liters daily, now im down to 0,5L)

I see most people here say its totally harmless. I think thats a bold statement, because history shows us that "science" cant always be trusted.

Smoking was not bad for you either for many many many years - untill it was.
Sugar - any amount of sugar - was not bad for you either - untill it was.

And thy had science to back it those claims... paid science.

Alot of research has been done on aspartam as well, and most of that research has been paid by coca-cola and other companies that uses aspartam in their products.

My concern is this: independent studies is often dismissed, while industry-funded studies often are not.
aspartam is no exception.

Neither of those things are actually true.

ok then ..

Doctors did recommend smoking cigarettes for pregnant women...I don't know what the prevailing view on sugar is...it all seems very convoluted to me.

daniip_la · November 2016

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

daniip_la wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

daniip_la wrote: »

I feel like this argument follows me everywhere I go.

Poor, abused chemistry. Misquoted and misreferenced, fear-mongered chemistry.

Well stop being evil then chemist!

It's too late to change my career path now. My MFP course is set for defending aspartame's reputation, it seems.

O-Chem was truly the devils work. Clearly a contradiction in terms anyways...organic chemistry? More like artificial chemistry! Because organic means real and chemistry isn't real, its fake!

You are clearly a shill to Big-Sweetner, making the big bucks doing your chemistry. We all know chemists make the big bucks. Scientists, living in their ivory tower castles with their lack of debt and incomes matching their education level. Pshaw

I'm not going to fight you on the horrors of organic chemistry, I hate it myself despite having enough graduate credits in it to teach it. I'm an analytical & environmental chemist all the way (the only chemistry that actually makes sense).

I must be in Big-Aspartame's pocket. Getting all that money to falsely prove their products are safe, while kicking puppies and poisoning water supplies. Man it's nice to be a grad student.

Aaron_K123 · November 2016

z4oslo wrote: »

pinkste78 wrote: »

Do diet cokes hinder weight loss in any way other than make you hungrier ? They don't make me more hungry, even though there has been studies that say they do. I just want to know what do regular people who have lost weight think about them.Thanks !

Is diet coke bad for you?

In all honesty, I dont know. I drink my diet coke daily, but im trying to reduce it. (in the past i would drink 1-2 liters daily, now im down to 0,5L)

I see most people here say its totally harmless. I think thats a bold statement, because history shows us that "science" cant always be trusted.

Smoking was not bad for you either for many many many years - untill it was.
Sugar - any amount of sugar - was not bad for you either - untill it was.

And thy had science to back it those claims... paid science.

Alot of research has been done on aspartam as well, and most of that research has been paid by coca-cola and other companies that uses aspartam in their products.

My concern is this: independent studies is often dismissed, while industry-funded studies often are not.
aspartam is no exception.

Actually it wasn't science backing up those claims, it was the media. The general public rarely bothers to look at actual science (ie published studies in scientific journals) they instead rely on the general media to report scientific findings and the general media is HORRIBLE at representing science. They sensationalize it, they misreport it, they interpret it without understanding it and view it through the lens of their opinion and then report that like its what Science with a capitol S says. Then people look back at all that misinformation and point at somehow it being Science itself that misinformed them. No.

This is so true it hurts:

Scientific publications are very dry, they aren't the ones making claims like "sugar is good for you" or "sugar is bad for you" that is the media deciding thats what the science means based on absolutely no actual education on the matter using only their own opinions.

With that comic in mind what you are basically doing is looking back at the media reporting how bad "A" is, attributing that information to Science and then in retrospect 40 years later saying how "wrong" science was that "A" was bad. What Science says is more along the lines of "carbon dervided from galactose was monitored via administration of C14 radiolabeled galactose to balbC mice in daily bolous of 10mg/kG. C14 was located in a 1:2 molar split between expelled CO2 and triglycerides". Media takes that up and says "Science shows sugar molecules are in our air and you breath them in every day!" Then an internet blog talks about how refined sugars end up in our air and you breath them in which is why everyone is getting fat. That idea picks up steam in the public conciousness and then is later debunked then people act smug about how wrong Science is. Its ridiculous.

Medical doctors are people, they aren't Science. Medical doctors undoubtably were under the misinformation common back then that smoking wasn't harmful to your health. But that belief wasn't based on a scientific study. It was based on media reporting of scientific results that was misrepresented in large part due to private interests.

Its the media you have to be concerned by, don't conflate the media with the Science itself.

I see people claim Science says something or claims Science was wrong when they said this and then when asked to provide where Science made that claim they link to some internet story or a publication in Newsweek or something. That isn't Science.

Frankly the public has basically little to know understanding of the actual science because the media does a crap job representing it and no one bothers to learn enough to be able to read and understand the actual scientific publications in actual science journals. That isn't really the fault of the public, if the public had time to learn enough to fully understand a scientific publication then they'd be a scientist.

BTW "Scientific American" is not a scientific journal. I get that all the time too.

soda80 · November 2016

ronjsteele1 wrote: »

Hornsby wrote: »

ronjsteele1 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

For example, if someone says the FDA reports 98 known side effects of aspartame, it should be trivially easy to point to the FDA listing them and identifying them in an official source, no?

Since I know exactly where this claim comes from and it proves how ron didn't actually even research his own sources and is just repeating something he heard somewhere, let me enlighten you.

Here: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/jan03/012203/02p-0317_emc-000199.txt

This is what the FDA calls a docket. What is a docket you may ask?

"The system allows consumers to access FDA's administrative proceedings and rule-making documents more readily, including Federal Registers, Petitions, supporting documents and comments."

and "By law, anyone can participate in the rule-making process by commenting in writing on rules FDA proposes. FDA routinely allows plenty of time for public input and carefully considers these comments when it draws up a final rule."

The link above is a docket comment sent TO the FDA by a certain Mark Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Information Center, which appears to consist of Mark Gold, Mark Gold, Mark Gold and Mark Gold. A google search of the Center shows you exactly what kind of people use that as their source.

And right now, I can either choose to get my workout in or sit here and argue with people and lose my workout time. I'd rather workout. It burns more calories.

Oddly, most of my posts on here some from rest periods while I'm working out. Not a shocker though at your thought process. On MFP all the time must equal "puts MFP ahead of working out". Just another correlation does not equal causation. Who usually likes to use correlation as a defense? Quacks.

I did not say being on mfp meant one is putting it ahead of working out so don't put words in mouth. I specifically said *I* had a choice to make.

As for the fda link and not trusting the fda, I was simply trying to grab a link off of a page that most of you worship as truth. Had I posted a link from an alternative site (which, quite frankly, I inadvertently did anyway) someone would have said it wasn't a valid site. So no matter what I had posted with that information you would have blown it off anyway. There is no point with you people.

And Aaron, for the record, that was not an underhanded compliment. It was absolutely sincere. I have not read everything you've ever posted on mfp. Sorry you can't take it for what it was.

FWIW my homeopath was a chemist for 10yrs before she went back to school to become a homeopath. She's amazingly intelligent and her chemistry background has proven useful in her practice.

Have a nice day folks. Time for me to get to work.

My grandmother from Eastern Europe has a recipe using freshly cut young rhubarb which she has used for many years to get rid of non-melanoma skin cancers like BCCs and SCCs. Everyone in her village swears by it.

Your first question shouldn't be "Where can I buy it?" it should be "Does it work?"

I don't know if it works or not, I just now made it up. You can very quickly and easily find out by typing "Rhubarb, efficacy and basal cell carcinoma" into Google Scholar. Going to a website that sells rhubarb and rhubarb-related cancer cures is not a substitute for peer-reviewed journals and double-blind experimental setups.

Say what you will about flaws in the scientific community and experimental method in particular, but despite mistakes, the trend over time is to provide solid evidence for or against a theory.

One day somebody just made up the concept of homeopathy. Nothing wrong with that. However, if after decades, there is no good evidence showing any effect and plenty of evidence showing no difference between water banged against a saddle and plain water, your brain should be shouting "Hang on a second, maybe this doesn't work?"

If you brain is not sending this message, can I interest you in my grandmother's secret rhubarb recipe?

Sorry about the rant. Homeopathy is so silly it gives me a headache.

stevencloser · November 2016

z4oslo wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

z4oslo wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

z4oslo wrote: »

pinkste78 wrote: »

Do diet cokes hinder weight loss in any way other than make you hungrier ? They don't make me more hungry, even though there has been studies that say they do. I just want to know what do regular people who have lost weight think about them.Thanks !

Is diet coke bad for you?

In all honesty, I dont know. I drink my diet coke daily, but im trying to reduce it. (in the past i would drink 1-2 liters daily, now im down to 0,5L)

I see most people here say its totally harmless. I think thats a bold statement, because history shows us that "science" cant always be trusted.

Smoking was not bad for you either for many many many years - untill it was.
Sugar - any amount of sugar - was not bad for you either - untill it was.

And thy had science to back it those claims... paid science.

Alot of research has been done on aspartam as well, and most of that research has been paid by coca-cola and other companies that uses aspartam in their products.

My concern is this: independent studies is often dismissed, while industry-funded studies often are not.
aspartam is no exception.

I don't understand this tinfoil-hat type of thinking. I get that it is beneficial to be skeptical of a lot of things. I'm skeptical of anything that Dr. Oz claims, for example.

But the fact that the ingredients in diet soda are very well-known components that have been shown time and time again to have no real negative effects in the amounts that we consume in diet soda is pretty hard to dispute. Aspartame, for example, is made of two amino acids which are consumed in much larger quantities basically every day by everyone. Why would you think that this is harmful? Is it because it's sweet? Is it because you are afraid that the companies manufacturing it are not being honest about what it's made of and that every company producing aspartame is adding this secret poison ingredient and no one has found out about it yet? Is it because of the scary sounding name? I'm genuinely curious.

What independent studies are you referring to? Can you post some of them?

When you start your sentence with "tin foil hat thinking" im seriously losing interest in having any kind of debate with you.

Also, i see my original post was marked as flagged - not saying its you but man ...

I don't generally flag posts unless they are legitimately spam or abuse. Even then it's few and far between. So no, not me.

I'm sorry if my term offended you - I honestly don't know how else to put it. Conspiracy theory mindset, perhaps? "I don't understand this [conspiracy theory mindset]." Either way, it just seems silly to me to completely discredit all of the research that has been done on very well-known substances because of where the money came from.

I am still interested in looking at the "independent studies" that you referred to in your post, if you have links to them. Unless responding to the tinfoil hat comment was your way of deflecting my questions so that you didn't have to think about them or answer them. If so, that's fine - I will just assume that you don't have any real answers or studies to post and be on my merry way.

Ramazzini studies comes to mind. Independant and dismissed.

But its really besides my point. Im not gonna sit on a forum and claim that Diet-coke is risk free, simply because I DONT KNOW.
I cant say its the opposite either.

All I know is this: Beeing a little sceptical on the various studies can often be smart.
And there is ALOT of studies out there claiming all sort of things, and they will often contradict each other because different interests dictates it.

Is a glass red wine daily really benificial for your health?
What about chocolate?

I dont know, and to be honest, I dont really care, but you wont see me on a forum claiming its good or bad either and THAT was my point.

Now if you excuse me, ill take my tin foil hat and leave this thread behind.

And the Ramazzini institute is dismissed for a good reason.

http://www.foodinsight.org/splenda-sucralose-ramazzini-soffritti-safety-cancer-study

And lastly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77GGn-E607E

Aaron_K123 · November 2016

Man it's nice to be a grad student.

All the money, all the credit, all the fame amirite?

Nothing like amassing college debt to start a position that pays about the same as flipping burgers at MickyDs while working 60 hour weeks in a hugely stressful enviornment where there is no guarantee that the years and years of work you put in will amount to anything. Shill.

Diet Cokes ?

Replies

Categories