Diet Coke, friend or foe?
Options
Replies
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »No, it's not healthy. It's basically a bunch of chemicals mixed together to be sinfully addictive & wonderful. I'm a believer in real, organic food, but I'm addicted to diet mt dew....I allow myself one a day. We can't be saints. Everything in moderation.
So you didn't bother to read the whole thread?
In particular, this link?
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary
There is nothing "scientific" about this thread. It is simply one MFP user's long-winded opinion, and because he has a scientific background, and it goes along with the pro artificial sweetener mentality, it gets posted over and over to prove that it is safe. I truly don't understand how this thread is "scientific" and articles that get posted against artificial sweeteners are all "unscientific"?
Which part of the structure of aspartyl-phenylalanine methol described in the first post of that thread do you feel is an "opnion"? Are we really going to say that the structure of a molecule is an opnion now?
He clearly states at the beginning of his post it is why he "personally believes" it is safe:
"Wanted to clear some things up about aspartame if I could just to explain why I personally believe there is absolutely no reason to fear aspartame."
I'm not arguing the structure...I'm arguing what it all means.
I've read his post and I see he cited sources, only problem is those sources no longer exist (except for the first one), so one cannot exactly view the source.
I'm not saying he is wrong. He very well could be right, but it cannot be said for certain that artificial sweeteners are harmless, just in the same way I cannot say for certain that they are harmful. There are studies that are in favor of both sides. That is the point I'm trying to make...there is no definitive safe or harmful verdict. Could they be safe? Yes. Could they be harmful? Yes. Obviously the jury is still out because studies are still being done on the subject.
You don't know how science works. The scientific consensus on aspartame, internationally, is that it is safe.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3496/epdf
I am very familiar with how science works. Just because the science and/or the FDA has approved something as safe now, does not mean they will not retract that and say it is harmful years down the line. Examples:
Transfats
Cigarettes
E-cigarettes
Countless prescription drugs
Artificial dyes (not yet proven unsafe by the fda, but many brands are removing them for this very reason)
Tanning beds/tanning and skin cancer
The list goes on. As I said, I'm not trying to prove that artificial sweeteners are harmful, I'm simply making the point that you cannot with out a doubt say they are not harmful. If they were 100% safe there would not be these debates on the subject.
You can honestly tell me that without a doubt, aspartame is not harmful?
What is wrong with E-cigarettes? I know someone who was a pack to two packs a day smoker for over 20 years, and went cold turkey thanks to E-cigarettes.
https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm173401.htm4 -
I never said e-cigarettes weren't without their merits. They helped someone I know quit smoking and ultimately quit e-cigs. I simply said that the FDA is now questioning their safety and they aren't as "safe" as originally thought.
And "MAY" in no way implies that they don't. It means exactly what it says...they might be toxic or they might not be. "May" does not definitely mean no...that's just wishful thinking.3 -
What's the difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke - apart from the different label?
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »No, it's not healthy. It's basically a bunch of chemicals mixed together to be sinfully addictive & wonderful. I'm a believer in real, organic food, but I'm addicted to diet mt dew....I allow myself one a day. We can't be saints. Everything in moderation.
So you didn't bother to read the whole thread?
In particular, this link?
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary
There is nothing "scientific" about this thread. It is simply one MFP user's long-winded opinion, and because he has a scientific background, and it goes along with the pro artificial sweetener mentality, it gets posted over and over to prove that it is safe. I truly don't understand how this thread is "scientific" and articles that get posted against artificial sweeteners are all "unscientific"?
Which part of the structure of aspartyl-phenylalanine methol described in the first post of that thread do you feel is an "opnion"? Are we really going to say that the structure of a molecule is an opnion now?
He clearly states at the beginning of his post it is why he "personally believes" it is safe:
"Wanted to clear some things up about aspartame if I could just to explain why I personally believe there is absolutely no reason to fear aspartame."
I'm not arguing the structure...I'm arguing what it all means.
I've read his post and I see he cited sources, only problem is those sources no longer exist (except for the first one), so one cannot exactly view the source.
I'm not saying he is wrong. He very well could be right, but it cannot be said for certain that artificial sweeteners are harmless, just in the same way I cannot say for certain that they are harmful. There are studies that are in favor of both sides. That is the point I'm trying to make...there is no definitive safe or harmful verdict. Could they be safe? Yes. Could they be harmful? Yes. Obviously the jury is still out because studies are still being done on the subject.
You don't know how science works. The scientific consensus on aspartame, internationally, is that it is safe.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3496/epdf
I am very familiar with how science works. Just because the science and/or the FDA has approved something as safe now, does not mean they will not retract that and say it is harmful years down the line. Examples:
Transfats
Cigarettes
E-cigarettes
Countless prescription drugs
Artificial dyes (not yet proven unsafe by the fda, but many brands are removing them for this very reason)
Tanning beds/tanning and skin cancer
The list goes on. As I said, I'm not trying to prove that artificial sweeteners are harmful, I'm simply making the point that you cannot with out a doubt say they are not harmful. If they were 100% safe there would not be these debates on the subject.
You can honestly tell me that without a doubt, aspartame is not harmful?
And maybe down the line they tell you exercise kills you earlier and vegetables give you cancer. If you go by that you can shoot yourself in the head immediately because anything deemed safe or good could at some point be shown to have caveats.
The consensus, given all available research over the past 50+ years is that they're safe. Also cigarettes were never actually thought as good for you, those were advertising campaigns like "9 out of 10 dentists would recommend THIS toothpaste." that you get today.4 -
CarlDuffin1 wrote: »What's the difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke - apart from the different label?
They taste different to me. Coke zero tastes much better.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »No, it's not healthy. It's basically a bunch of chemicals mixed together to be sinfully addictive & wonderful. I'm a believer in real, organic food, but I'm addicted to diet mt dew....I allow myself one a day. We can't be saints. Everything in moderation.
So you didn't bother to read the whole thread?
In particular, this link?
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary
There is nothing "scientific" about this thread. It is simply one MFP user's long-winded opinion, and because he has a scientific background, and it goes along with the pro artificial sweetener mentality, it gets posted over and over to prove that it is safe. I truly don't understand how this thread is "scientific" and articles that get posted against artificial sweeteners are all "unscientific"?
Which part of the structure of aspartyl-phenylalanine methol described in the first post of that thread do you feel is an "opnion"? Are we really going to say that the structure of a molecule is an opnion now?
He clearly states at the beginning of his post it is why he "personally believes" it is safe:
"Wanted to clear some things up about aspartame if I could just to explain why I personally believe there is absolutely no reason to fear aspartame."
I'm not arguing the structure...I'm arguing what it all means.
I've read his post and I see he cited sources, only problem is those sources no longer exist (except for the first one), so one cannot exactly view the source.
I'm not saying he is wrong. He very well could be right, but it cannot be said for certain that artificial sweeteners are harmless, just in the same way I cannot say for certain that they are harmful. There are studies that are in favor of both sides. That is the point I'm trying to make...there is no definitive safe or harmful verdict. Could they be safe? Yes. Could they be harmful? Yes. Obviously the jury is still out because studies are still being done on the subject.
You don't know how science works. The scientific consensus on aspartame, internationally, is that it is safe.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3496/epdf
I am very familiar with how science works. Just because the science and/or the FDA has approved something as safe now, does not mean they will not retract that and say it is harmful years down the line. Examples:
Transfats
Cigarettes
E-cigarettes
Countless prescription drugs
Artificial dyes (not yet proven unsafe by the fda, but many brands are removing them for this very reason)
Tanning beds/tanning and skin cancer
The list goes on. As I said, I'm not trying to prove that artificial sweeteners are harmful, I'm simply making the point that you cannot with out a doubt say they are not harmful. If they were 100% safe there would not be these debates on the subject.
You can honestly tell me that without a doubt, aspartame is not harmful?
Also we know the chemical structure and what happens to aspartame in the gut. There is absolutely nothing about it that could cause harm. Which you would know if you read what the scientist in the linked thread told you instead of plugging your ears and going "lalala chemistry is just your opinion."5 -
CarlDuffin1 wrote: »What's the difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke - apart from the different label?
They taste different. I like diet Coke and cannot stand Coke Zero. (The latter may taste more like actual Coke, which I also hate.)
I guess Coke Zero is now Coke Zero Sugar? I saw someone buying a 6 pack the other day.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CarlDuffin1 wrote: »What's the difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke - apart from the different label?
They taste different. I like diet Coke and cannot stand Coke Zero. (The latter may taste more like actual Coke, which I also hate.)
I guess Coke Zero is now Coke Zero Sugar? I saw someone buying a 6 pack the other day.
Quite right. Regular coke and Coke zero taste like chewing aluminum foil.0 -
Diet Coke is my addiction. I have to actively ration how much of it I drink. It's great that it doesn't have calories but beware; personally, when I have it, I ALWAYS want something sweet soon after. I also find that I eat more when I drink soda. Just giving you the heads up.1
-
Guess it just goes to show we're all different. I drink about 2 litres of the stuff a day and, if anything, it curbs my hunger. I've got more of a salt tooth than a sweet one and haven't noticed any cravings.0
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »No, it's not healthy. It's basically a bunch of chemicals mixed together to be sinfully addictive & wonderful. I'm a believer in real, organic food, but I'm addicted to diet mt dew....I allow myself one a day. We can't be saints. Everything in moderation.
So you didn't bother to read the whole thread?
In particular, this link?
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary
There is nothing "scientific" about this thread. It is simply one MFP user's long-winded opinion, and because he has a scientific background, and it goes along with the pro artificial sweetener mentality, it gets posted over and over to prove that it is safe. I truly don't understand how this thread is "scientific" and articles that get posted against artificial sweeteners are all "unscientific"?
Which part of the structure of aspartyl-phenylalanine methol described in the first post of that thread do you feel is an "opnion"? Are we really going to say that the structure of a molecule is an opnion now?
He clearly states at the beginning of his post it is why he "personally believes" it is safe:
"Wanted to clear some things up about aspartame if I could just to explain why I personally believe there is absolutely no reason to fear aspartame."
I'm not arguing the structure...I'm arguing what it all means.
I've read his post and I see he cited sources, only problem is those sources no longer exist (except for the first one), so one cannot exactly view the source.
I'm not saying he is wrong. He very well could be right, but it cannot be said for certain that artificial sweeteners are harmless, just in the same way I cannot say for certain that they are harmful. There are studies that are in favor of both sides. That is the point I'm trying to make...there is no definitive safe or harmful verdict. Could they be safe? Yes. Could they be harmful? Yes. Obviously the jury is still out because studies are still being done on the subject.
You don't know how science works. The scientific consensus on aspartame, internationally, is that it is safe.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3496/epdf
I am very familiar with how science works. Just because the science and/or the FDA has approved something as safe now, does not mean they will not retract that and say it is harmful years down the line. Examples:
Transfats
Cigarettes
E-cigarettes
Countless prescription drugs
Artificial dyes (not yet proven unsafe by the fda, but many brands are removing them for this very reason)
Tanning beds/tanning and skin cancer
The list goes on. As I said, I'm not trying to prove that artificial sweeteners are harmful, I'm simply making the point that you cannot with out a doubt say they are not harmful. If they were 100% safe there would not be these debates on the subject.
You can honestly tell me that without a doubt, aspartame is not harmful?
Also cigarettes were never actually thought as good for you...
There are YouTube videos from the 1950's where they tell you that more doctors smoke Camels (I think it's Camels) than any other cigarette. The magazines were loaded with these ads.
The first warnings on packages (cigarette smoking MAY be hazardous to your health) were added I believe in 1964.
Another favorite - A Flintstones commercial for Winston cigarettes. It's on YouTube.
That doesn't mean that actual doctors or scientists or for that matter, ordinary people actually believed cigarettes were good for you.
That's almost as popular a myth as the "ancient peoples were stupid and actually believed the earth was flat until Columbus bravely proved otherwise"... which is also false.4 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »No, it's not healthy. It's basically a bunch of chemicals mixed together to be sinfully addictive & wonderful. I'm a believer in real, organic food, but I'm addicted to diet mt dew....I allow myself one a day. We can't be saints. Everything in moderation.
So you didn't bother to read the whole thread?
In particular, this link?
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary
There is nothing "scientific" about this thread. It is simply one MFP user's long-winded opinion, and because he has a scientific background, and it goes along with the pro artificial sweetener mentality, it gets posted over and over to prove that it is safe. I truly don't understand how this thread is "scientific" and articles that get posted against artificial sweeteners are all "unscientific"?
Which part of the structure of aspartyl-phenylalanine methol described in the first post of that thread do you feel is an "opnion"? Are we really going to say that the structure of a molecule is an opnion now?
He clearly states at the beginning of his post it is why he "personally believes" it is safe:
"Wanted to clear some things up about aspartame if I could just to explain why I personally believe there is absolutely no reason to fear aspartame."
I'm not arguing the structure...I'm arguing what it all means.
I've read his post and I see he cited sources, only problem is those sources no longer exist (except for the first one), so one cannot exactly view the source.
I'm not saying he is wrong. He very well could be right, but it cannot be said for certain that artificial sweeteners are harmless, just in the same way I cannot say for certain that they are harmful. There are studies that are in favor of both sides. That is the point I'm trying to make...there is no definitive safe or harmful verdict. Could they be safe? Yes. Could they be harmful? Yes. Obviously the jury is still out because studies are still being done on the subject.
You don't know how science works. The scientific consensus on aspartame, internationally, is that it is safe.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3496/epdf
I am very familiar with how science works. Just because the science and/or the FDA has approved something as safe now, does not mean they will not retract that and say it is harmful years down the line. Examples:
Transfats
Cigarettes
E-cigarettes
Countless prescription drugs
Artificial dyes (not yet proven unsafe by the fda, but many brands are removing them for this very reason)
Tanning beds/tanning and skin cancer
The list goes on. As I said, I'm not trying to prove that artificial sweeteners are harmful, I'm simply making the point that you cannot with out a doubt say they are not harmful. If they were 100% safe there would not be these debates on the subject.
You can honestly tell me that without a doubt, aspartame is not harmful?
Also cigarettes were never actually thought as good for you...
There are YouTube videos from the 1950's where they tell you that more doctors smoke Camels (I think it's Camels) than any other cigarette. The magazines were loaded with these ads.
The first warnings on packages (cigarette smoking MAY be hazardous to your health) were added I believe in 1964.
Another favorite - A Flintstones commercial for Winston cigarettes. It's on YouTube.
As I said, those are advertising campaings à la "9 out of 10 dentists recommend THIS". It's just advertising.2 -
Drink in moderation, like anything else. I know a lot of people who are addicted to caffeinated soda.
A strict nutritionist would likely recommend sticking to beverages that are not adulterated in a laboratory, such as water and 100% juice. The phosphoric acid used in Diet Coke personally riles up my acid reflux and heartburn.0 -
*
*Not based on actual scientific research4 -
Friend or foe... It's interesting. I think it depends on how much it is in your life. People are great friends unless they are too much in your life. Once they start hanging around too much they become foes pretty quickly. I imagine the same with diet coke - one every other day is probably just fine. Four a day is a definite problem.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions