Aspartame in diet sodas causes diabets and weight gain?!

1468910

Replies

  • cmtigger
    cmtigger Posts: 1,450 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    cmtigger wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    cmtigger wrote: »
    My husband used to drink a 2 liter bottle of Mountain Dew a day. Another friend Diet Coke..like nonstop. Neither one was/is overweight but they both developed type 2 Diabetes. When I was in my twenties I drank diet drinks non-stop. I'm 5'10 and weighed 129 lbs at the time. I haven't developed Diabetes but I found out that I was almost prediabetic. I think it's a combination of genetics, activity levels, belly fat and diet. I haven't had soda in two years besides one time taking a sip. I spit it out as there was a very strong chemical taste that I never noticed before. I think anything you overdo can be bad(even exercise!) and have consequences on your health.I would try cutting back and see how you feel

    One of my grandmothers drank diet a&w root beer nonstop. The other one didn't. Neither were obese (except the diet root beer one near the end of her life- in her 90's) both were slightly overweight at times though.

    The A&W drinking grandmother never had any blood sugar issues. The other one developed type 2 in her 50's. The big difference? The one who developed T2D had many relatives with the disorder, even those with healthy lifestyles.

    Perfect example of what research has shown:

    The #1 risk factor for T2 diabetes is genetics

    (#2 is obesity, then it goes to things like age, if your mother had Gestational diabetes while carrying you, some cancer treatments (especially in childhood), long term use of some medications like statins and certain antidepressants, etc) No where do they say what you eat or drink causes diabetes. How much you eat CAN put you at risk.

    Exactly.

    I once tried to explain the genetics link to someone and she insisted the only family link was because they learned bad lifestyle choices. She refused to believe that one of the relatives played tennis before breakfast every day, another was an avid sailboat enthusiast, and another worked extra miles of walking into their day. And they are pretty healthy, even if it was bland.

    Hopefully she doesnt research and find out that certain races/ethnic groups have higher risk; it just might be mind bottling ;)... as do woman.

    My family is odd. In the genetic linked health issues, it's equal opportunity. My entire immediate family gets migraines, my brother and I get hemiplegic migraines. The diabetes and kidney stones are evenly spread too. Though the diabetes hasn't hit anyone in my generation yet. And only has been prediabetes in the generation before me.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,177 Member
    cmtigger wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    cmtigger wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    cmtigger wrote: »
    My husband used to drink a 2 liter bottle of Mountain Dew a day. Another friend Diet Coke..like nonstop. Neither one was/is overweight but they both developed type 2 Diabetes. When I was in my twenties I drank diet drinks non-stop. I'm 5'10 and weighed 129 lbs at the time. I haven't developed Diabetes but I found out that I was almost prediabetic. I think it's a combination of genetics, activity levels, belly fat and diet. I haven't had soda in two years besides one time taking a sip. I spit it out as there was a very strong chemical taste that I never noticed before. I think anything you overdo can be bad(even exercise!) and have consequences on your health.I would try cutting back and see how you feel

    One of my grandmothers drank diet a&w root beer nonstop. The other one didn't. Neither were obese (except the diet root beer one near the end of her life- in her 90's) both were slightly overweight at times though.

    The A&W drinking grandmother never had any blood sugar issues. The other one developed type 2 in her 50's. The big difference? The one who developed T2D had many relatives with the disorder, even those with healthy lifestyles.

    Perfect example of what research has shown:

    The #1 risk factor for T2 diabetes is genetics

    (#2 is obesity, then it goes to things like age, if your mother had Gestational diabetes while carrying you, some cancer treatments (especially in childhood), long term use of some medications like statins and certain antidepressants, etc) No where do they say what you eat or drink causes diabetes. How much you eat CAN put you at risk.

    Exactly.

    I once tried to explain the genetics link to someone and she insisted the only family link was because they learned bad lifestyle choices. She refused to believe that one of the relatives played tennis before breakfast every day, another was an avid sailboat enthusiast, and another worked extra miles of walking into their day. And they are pretty healthy, even if it was bland.

    Hopefully she doesnt research and find out that certain races/ethnic groups have higher risk; it just might be mind bottling ;)... as do woman.

    My family is odd. In the genetic linked health issues, it's equal opportunity. My entire immediate family gets migraines, my brother and I get hemiplegic migraines. The diabetes and kidney stones are evenly spread too. Though the diabetes hasn't hit anyone in my generation yet. And only has been prediabetes in the generation before me.

    I hit the genetic lottery. My parents were 77 (Dad) and 95 (Mom) Grandparents lived to 78, 82, 94, and 96. Several gr-grandparents made it over 90 as did gr-gr-grandparents. Heart disease is unknown, cancer was unknown until my parents generation (Dad and his brother, lifestyle caused), I am the only one with diabetes. My risk factors: obesity and long term use of antidepressants.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    mathjulz wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    mathjulz wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    mathjulz wrote: »
    I know there is a lot of information out there saying it is ok and other information saying it isnt. I chose not to consume artificial sweeteners because I personally believe extensively processed foods arent as healthy.
    I dont think it necessarily effects weight loss although I read somewhere that artificial sweeteners screw with our perception of what sweet tastes like since they are so much sweeter than say fruit sugar.

    I just don't understand this mindset that processing is inherently bad, that something otherwise ok (or good) becomes bad simply because of processing.

    I get that some types of processing can be less idea than others. But saying it's bad simply because it is processed doesn't make sense.

    She said "extensively processed" which could be equivalent to the Brazilian government's Ultra Processed: http://189.28.128.100/dab/docs/portaldab/publicacoes/guia_alimentar_populacao_ingles.pdf

    They have different recommendations based on:

    1. Natural/minimally processed
    2. Processed
    3. Ultra processed

    I wasn't referring just to her post; there are many on the forums that call processed foods bad just because they are processed.

    But even for "ultra processed," I think one must look at what about it is making it "bad." For example, someone mentioned instant noodles and that they may break down differently than regular pasta. That makes some sense as a potential reason to avoid them.

    Maybe. But no one eats noodles (pasta or instant) on their own, for the most part. I think I made instant noodles last night -- I was experimenting with an Asian noodle salad and bought some Japanese noodles (Soba?) which were not dried, and so cooked extremely quickly in boiling water compared to pasta. There was no packet or anything and I combined them with chicken, almonds, cabbage and some other vegetables, and a homemade dressing (and garlic and ginger, etc.).

    Even if the noodles, on their own, broke down differently than pasta -- and to be honest I'm skeptical that that matters -- the meal as a whole would counteract that, so deciding it (made mostly with whole foods) was "ultraprocessed and thus to be avoided) strikes me as a trees vs. forest way of looking at this.

    I think the appeal that the Brazilian rules have for lots of people is similar to the simpler Michael Pollan stuff -- for many of us if you focus on mostly home cooking you eat better because you have to put more thought into it than if you just buy preprepared stuff.

    But generalizing about that too much I think ignores some realities.

    First, some people are very thoughtful about the pre-packaged foods they choose, but just hate to cook or whatever.

    Second, many people use instant or ultra processed stuff as a help to make cooking with whole foods easier. stevencloser's example demonstrates this, and WinoGelato often gives such examples. My mom did that to some degree when I was growing up, and my parents do more now, and when I was in my 20s I would commonly buy rice and beans and add vegetables -- a quite healthy meal but fast and easy for someone who never had really learned to cook regularly (something I've rectified).

    The discussions of ultraprocessed foods seem as if unless you eat only whole foods based on the idea that any ultraprocessed is inherently bad that you will slip into a life of overeating unbalanced meals and eating NO whole foods, but of course that's not how life really is.

    I do think this might relate to how often the people pushing NO processed (meaning ultra processed) foods are the same ones that not so long ago were living on only them, whereas it's the people who always ate mostly balanced meals with whole foods and some ultraprocessed ingredients or additions who find the all or nothing thing problematic.

    The approach of the Brazilian rules seems to be sensible in a broad population sense (same with eat less sugar, etc.), but when people apply it to every individual and suggest that whether a particular diet is healthy or not is dependent on whether you eat ultraprocessed foods or that a bite of such makes an otherwise good diet bad, I think there's a misunderstanding.

    I think we're mostly on the same page here. My point, originally, was that we can't say something is bad simply because it is processed, or ultra processed. If someone wants to convince me that I shouldn't eat something, it certainly needs to be more than "oh noez, the processed"

    Oh, I was never intending to disagree with you, quite the opposite.

    The Brazilian guidelines seem a lot more reasonable than the "oh, no, it's processed" stuff we run into that would suggest that dried pasta or canned beans or plain greek yogurt is always bad, but if you look at them I think the rationale for NO ultra processed foods doesn't work well either.

    Does it make sense as a way to approach eating more broadly (i.e., be more mindful about foods, know what you are eating, spend time cooking, etc.)? On average, probably. But that doesn't translate sensibly into ALL ultraprocessed foods are ALWAYS bad in any amount, even if they are reasonably nutritious, are helpful in putting together a balanced, nutrient-dense diet, and we are thoughtful about how we use them.
  • Kwoconnor
    Kwoconnor Posts: 39 Member
    Been drinking 2-3 cans (330ml) of Coke Zero for months. I have only lost weight due to my diet. Can't say the Coke has had any effect on me whatsoever.
  • hesn92
    hesn92 Posts: 5,971 Member
    I have no idea but I drink it anyway. Because zero calories
  • Old_Cat_Lady
    Old_Cat_Lady Posts: 1,200 Member
    edited September 2017
    I am talking about people that never drink water. They hate it. I myself will drink a diet coke from time to time.