Diet Coke, friend or foe?

1…468910

Replies

  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    JeepHair77 wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    J9LynnHelton wrote: »
    Hi, I am determined to lose all this weight this time. My husband is convinced, from all the internet stuff he reads, that Diet Coke is the most evil of things you can ingest. According to him it will cause all kinds of trouble, from making me gain weight, destroying my pancreas, to bloating my stomach. I love the taste, and feel it is a great sweet treat with no calories.
    What do you all think?
    Diet Cherry Pepsi is better.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png


    True. In order to get it without caffeine, I buy caffeine free diet Pepsi and add a few drops of cherry Kool-Aid flavor drops.

    OMG. I actually keep kool-aid flavor drops in my desk at work, in both grape and cherry, because I'm really an 8-year-old in a 40-year-old's body. So I just squirted some of the cherry in my coke zero sugar, and it's amazing. Life-changing.

    This is brilliant! I'm going to have to try it.
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    Ya know, as an aside...

    I wonder what fraction of people who avoid diet beverages because of "chemicals" happily consume drugs which have had less testing and long-term exposure than artificial sweeteners? How about hormonal birth control?
  • bobbigirl83
    bobbigirl83 Posts: 37 Member
    4homer wrote: »
    Chef_Barbell wrote: »
    It's fine. Diet Dr Pepper is where it's at :)
    diet Dr pepper cherry is amazeballs

    So much this.
  • megpie41
    megpie41 Posts: 164 Member
    edited September 2017
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    megpie41 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    ToriMalt 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.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    megpie41 wrote: »
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    megpie41 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    ToriMalt 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
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • megpie41
    megpie41 Posts: 164 Member
    Ericnutrition wrote: »
    megpie41 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    megpie41 wrote: »
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    megpie41 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    ToriMalt 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.htm
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited September 2017
    This content has been removed.
  • megpie41
    megpie41 Posts: 164 Member
    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.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • CarlDuffin1
    CarlDuffin1 Posts: 13 Member
    What's the difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke - apart from the different label?
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    megpie41 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    megpie41 wrote: »
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    megpie41 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    ToriMalt 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.
  • MalkinMagic71
    MalkinMagic71 Posts: 1,433 Member
    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.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited September 2017
    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.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    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.
  • ccruz985
    ccruz985 Posts: 646 Member
    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.
  • estherdragonbat
    estherdragonbat Posts: 5,283 Member
    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.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited September 2017
    This content has been removed.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    edited September 2017
    Ericnutrition wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    megpie41 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    megpie41 wrote: »
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    megpie41 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    ToriMalt 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.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited September 2017
    This content has been removed.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Ericnutrition wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    megpie41 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    megpie41 wrote: »
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    megpie41 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    ToriMalt 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.
  • sixxpoint
    sixxpoint Posts: 3,529 Member
    edited September 2017
    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.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    hqdefault.jpg*





    *Not based on actual scientific research
  • davidylin
    davidylin Posts: 228 Member
    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.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories