Diet Sodas?
Replies
-
pjbarclay55 wrote: »You are right im relating the two. My other post was saying sugars, i include them together Sugars/Sweetners) shouldn't but i do. Neither one are probably at all related sugar, aspartame and my personal fat loss but because it happened its kept me continuing what i'm doing. Just an interesting read below:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
Nothing in there even suggests that someone will lose weight/body fat simply by eliminating diet soda and maintaining the same calorie level.5 -
But being zero calorie, doesn't that just make it neutral? Why would it be 'not great' if it has zero impact on a person.
Using your same train of thought, how it can be “great” if it has no impact?
I also am not going to say it has “no impact” on a person, because I haven’t done research on this. Dark soda does stain my teeth. So there. Not great.
To me, saying something is 'not great for me' implies that has a deleterious effect. And my train of thought led me to the conclusion that diet soda is neutral, neither great or not great. Never once did I say it was great, so I'm not sure where you are getting that.
I'm sorry soda stains your teeth. Do you also not drink wine, coffee or juice? I've found that brushing my teeth helps keep them clean.9 -
pjbarclay55 wrote: »You are right im relating the two. My other post was saying sugars, i include them together Sugars/Sweetners) shouldn't but i do. Neither one are probably at all related sugar, aspartame and my personal fat loss but because it happened its kept me continuing what i'm doing. Just an interesting read below:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
You directly stated that you gave up diet sodas and made no other changes to your diet.
The fact that you also gave up sugar at the same time makes this an untrue statement.7 -
But being zero calorie, doesn't that just make it neutral? Why would it be 'not great' if it has zero impact on a person.
Using your same train of thought, how it can be “great” if it has no impact?
I also am not going to say it has “no impact” on a person, because I haven’t done research on this. Dark soda does stain my teeth. So there. Not great.
To me, saying something is 'not great for me' implies that has a deleterious effect. And my train of thought led me to the conclusion that diet soda is neutral, neither great or not great. Never once did I say it was great, so I'm not sure where you are getting that.
I'm sorry soda stains your teeth. Do you also not drink wine, coffee or juice? I've found that brushing my teeth helps keep them clean.
You just like to argue. Over my use of the term “not great.” Ridiculous.
And wow, thanks for the advice.
4 -
But being zero calorie, doesn't that just make it neutral? Why would it be 'not great' if it has zero impact on a person.
Using your same train of thought, how it can be “great” if it has no impact?
I also am not going to say it has “no impact” on a person, because I haven’t done research on this. Dark soda does stain my teeth. So there. Not great.
To me, saying something is 'not great for me' implies that has a deleterious effect. And my train of thought led me to the conclusion that diet soda is neutral, neither great or not great. Never once did I say it was great, so I'm not sure where you are getting that.
I'm sorry soda stains your teeth. Do you also not drink wine, coffee or juice? I've found that brushing my teeth helps keep them clean.
You just like to argue. Over my use of the term “not great.” Ridiculous.
And wow, thanks for the advice.
You're welcome!4 -
pjbarclay55 wrote: »You are right im relating the two. My other post was saying sugars, i include them together Sugars/Sweetners) shouldn't but i do. Neither one are probably at all related sugar, aspartame and my personal fat loss but because it happened its kept me continuing what i'm doing. Just an interesting read below:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
The problem with that study is that it is based on correlation and cannot point a finger at the artificial sweetners as the cause of the weight gain.3 -
-
But being zero calorie, doesn't that just make it neutral? Why would it be 'not great' if it has zero impact on a person.lemurcat12 wrote: »
But being zero calorie, doesn't that just make it neutral? Why would it be 'not great' if it has zero impact on a person.
Yeah, this.
I understand "not great for you" to mean "bad for you," at least as it's normally used in the US, and I don't think diet soda is bad for you.
Does it have amazing health benefits? Well, not particularly, but who said it did? That's hardly my standard about what is required for anything I will consume. I don't think coffee has amazing health benefits, or homemade iced tea (I don't sweeten it, because I think sweet tea is icky) -- at least not unless one otherwise would be dehydrated -- but I consume them because I enjoy them. Same with the occasional diet coke.
I am from North America myself and not great to me doesn't mean bad...it means it's not great...that could mean it's good, neutral, bad...
you get to choose how you take it.
If you choose to take it as a negative that's how you choose to take it.
Diet soda is neither great, good nor bad...it is quite neutral as far as most peoples health and weight loss goes...0 -
In my opinion diet soda is just a common distraction for people looking to get healthier because there is something in our psyche that wants to feel productive but doesn't really want to cut out foods or increase their level of exercise so they instead nitpick ingredients in things like beverages so they can feel like they are being proactive about their health without actually doing anything.
Its a waste of time. Diet soda isn't going to help or harm or do anything really. Much better to think about how you can get an extra daily walk into your schedule, that is the kind of thing that will really make a difference long term.9 -
I quit drinking diet soda because my husband and I would go through 6 12 pks a week and it was expensive. It was all I drank and it's not bad for you imo, but the amount I drank made me personally feel like crap I've come to realize. Since I quit, I'm less bloated, have no sugar cravings, and no longer have this weird back ache in the kidney area. I did change other things around the same time, so I can't attribute all that to no longer drinking the equivalent of 1.5 two liters a day of Diet Coke, but I think my body is happier? Eh, just my n=1. I want to stress the only reason we stopped was financial and not because I think it's bad. I still use Equal as my artificial sweetener of choice, so it definitely wasn't the aspartame people like to blacklist.
Now I drink black coffee in the am, water until after lunch, then I'll have one Coke zero, and then it's unsweet iced tea with a little bit of equal till bed. I just brought in the Coke zero this week because I miss the fizz and hate/detest stuff like LaCroix. So far no detrimental effects and I treat it as an afternoon treat with no calories. After a month off the stuff, I've come to prefer iced tea, which is easy to make and way cheaper.0 -
lostsomeweightonce wrote: »
The wine has calories, the diet soda doesn't. I don't see it as an either/or. It's like asking if I should choose wine or water . . . clearly one can consume both in the same day.1 -
Ima T2 diabetic and drink bottled water 6 times a day...coffee w cream to wake up and one diet cola clear ( sprite or 7up or squirt) the dark diet colas give me kidney stones here in AZ we are hot n thirsty and have a high kidney stone rate..so i switched this year to clear crisp clear diet lemon soda it taste great its once a day and at 65 i grew up with those EVILLLLL Saccharine tablets in early 50s LOL i had cancer from age 13 but it was due to a synthetic estrogen ..given to my Mom and me in utero...long story short drink the diet if you can not have the carbs drink the cola if you can do the carbs 40 a can.. drink lots of flavored water low salt low carb and just have fun with your meals while your exercising and being healthy... read labels there is more sugar in blasted ketchup and salad dressings then you want to know..0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »lostsomeweightonce wrote: »
The wine has calories, the diet soda doesn't. I don't see it as an either/or. It's like asking if I should choose wine or water . . . clearly one can consume both in the same day.
Very true! But if I had the choice and i had to drink one. I would fit the Dry Wine into my calories. There lots of arguments above about aspartame positive/neutral/negative. I don't know much about it to be honest and don't know if i'm for or against it. I'm just saying I would choose the wine. If my choice was water or wine well then that gets trickier
. If your comparing Diet Soda to Water though I would assume there would be some differences even though they are both zero calorie. 0 -
lostsomeweightonce wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lostsomeweightonce wrote: »
The wine has calories, the diet soda doesn't. I don't see it as an either/or. It's like asking if I should choose wine or water . . . clearly one can consume both in the same day.
Very true! But if I had the choice and i had to drink one. I would fit the Dry Wine into my calories. There lots of arguments above about aspartame positive/neutral/negative. I don't know much about it to be honest and don't know if i'm for or against it. I'm just saying I would choose the wine. If my choice was water or wine well then that gets trickier. If your comparing Diet Soda to Water though I would assume there would be some differences even though they are both zero calorie.
That is a curious rationale: avoid diet coke, but bring on the alcohol.2 -
One diet soda a day is fine. Regular soda has calories with no nutritive value. The studies that showed diet soda to be bad were way too small and not conclusive and honestly can't back up if it is bad for you or not. Check out the Sept. 2017 issue of webmd magazine for a great article about the studies done on diet soda. It is free online1
-
But being zero calorie, doesn't that just make it neutral? Why would it be 'not great' if it has zero impact on a person.lemurcat12 wrote: »
But being zero calorie, doesn't that just make it neutral? Why would it be 'not great' if it has zero impact on a person.
Yeah, this.
I understand "not great for you" to mean "bad for you," at least as it's normally used in the US, and I don't think diet soda is bad for you.
Does it have amazing health benefits? Well, not particularly, but who said it did? That's hardly my standard about what is required for anything I will consume. I don't think coffee has amazing health benefits, or homemade iced tea (I don't sweeten it, because I think sweet tea is icky) -- at least not unless one otherwise would be dehydrated -- but I consume them because I enjoy them. Same with the occasional diet coke.
I am from North America myself and not great to me doesn't mean bad...it means it's not great...that could mean it's good, neutral, bad...
you get to choose how you take it.
If you choose to take it as a negative that's how you choose to take it.
Diet soda is neither great, good nor bad...it is quite neutral as far as most peoples health and weight loss goes...
If someone in the US says something is "not great," they typically mean it's bad.
Perhaps it is used differently in Canada.7 -
lostsomeweightonce wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lostsomeweightonce wrote: »
The wine has calories, the diet soda doesn't. I don't see it as an either/or. It's like asking if I should choose wine or water . . . clearly one can consume both in the same day.
Very true! But if I had the choice and i had to drink one. I would fit the Dry Wine into my calories. There lots of arguments above about aspartame positive/neutral/negative. I don't know much about it to be honest and don't know if i'm for or against it. I'm just saying I would choose the wine. If my choice was water or wine well then that gets trickier. If your comparing Diet Soda to Water though I would assume there would be some differences even though they are both zero calorie.
There are a lot of arguments about alcohol too, for what it's worth (not arguing against drinking it, I drink alcohol myself).
There are similarities and differences between water and diet soda. This, in and of itself, doesn't signify anything. There are similarities and differences between my sofa and my bed, but I've got both of them in my house and I use them both.2 -
One diet soda a day is fine. Regular soda has calories with no nutritive value. The studies that showed diet soda to be bad were way too small and not conclusive and honestly can't back up if it is bad for you or not. Check out the Sept. 2017 issue of webmd magazine for a great article about the studies done on diet soda. It is free online
Carbohydrates are macronutrients, so I disagree that regular soda has calories with no nutritive value.
They may not be nutrients that people in the West typically struggle to get (we are blessed with an abundance of options for carbohydrates), but it's energy that my body can use.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »peaceout_aly wrote: »I read that Zevia brand sodas are a good sub for "diet" sodas. Still 0 calories but without the chemicals and supposedly cancer-causing sweeteners. Honestly, your best bet if you're into the whole chemical-avoidance thing is water.
Stevia is less tested than other sweeteners.
I like some of the Zevia sodas and shop at WF often, so buy them occasionally and enjoy them, but I'd not consider them a "sub" for diet sodas. They ARE diet sodas.
Stevia doesn't have as much lab testing as the others, but it has been tested by the South American native tribes for thousands of years (human testing as it were).
Stevia, the product on the shelf of your supermarket, is a processed and purified plant derivitive. It is as far as chewing on the leaf of a stevia plant as taking aspirin is from chewing on willow bark.
Steviol glycosides are the plant derivitive, but that is just a precursor in a line of processing steps for what you buy in the store which is very different.
Steviol glycoside natural product
Stevia the sweetner:
Similarly aspartyl-phenylalanine natural product
Versus aspartame, the processed store product which is a methylated ester of that precursor
So...what is the difference exactly? Both are chemically modified versions of natural products. Where is that line between synthetic and natural? Is it in the exact process in which the original product is purified or in the steps necessary to modify it? Which chemical modification steps are "natural" and which are "synthetic"? Was it the means by which they were first discovered?
Not gonna lie - love it when you do a chemistry mic drop.6 -
Every time I crack open a Coke Zero Sugar, I think of you guys.
8 -
pjbarclay55 wrote: »You are right im relating the two. My other post was saying sugars, i include them together Sugars/Sweetners) shouldn't but i do. Neither one are probably at all related sugar, aspartame and my personal fat loss but because it happened its kept me continuing what i'm doing. Just an interesting read below:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
But but, you said all of this wonderful stuff, and mentioned cake. It's ok, you got caught.
"I personally gave them up no reason just to see what happens to my body and I literally just started loosing my love handles. No other change to my diet. This was the first time in my life they shrank"
and this
"I gave up sugars, yes sugars there's lots of them. Did it more as an experiment then anything. I felt better lost my love handles which I've never done before (guess that's where that sugar was going, *this is a joke*) but in seriousness my love handles shrunk drastically"
"If i didn't notice a difference I would probably be Fasting all day to get some cake in to my calories."
2 -
sparklyglitterbomb wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »peaceout_aly wrote: »I read that Zevia brand sodas are a good sub for "diet" sodas. Still 0 calories but without the chemicals and supposedly cancer-causing sweeteners. Honestly, your best bet if you're into the whole chemical-avoidance thing is water.
Stevia is less tested than other sweeteners.
I like some of the Zevia sodas and shop at WF often, so buy them occasionally and enjoy them, but I'd not consider them a "sub" for diet sodas. They ARE diet sodas.
Stevia doesn't have as much lab testing as the others, but it has been tested by the South American native tribes for thousands of years (human testing as it were).
Stevia, the product on the shelf of your supermarket, is a processed and purified plant derivitive. It is as far as chewing on the leaf of a stevia plant as taking aspirin is from chewing on willow bark.
Steviol glycosides are the plant derivitive, but that is just a precursor in a line of processing steps for what you buy in the store which is very different.
Steviol glycoside natural product
Stevia the sweetner:
Similarly aspartyl-phenylalanine natural product
Versus aspartame, the processed store product which is a methylated ester of that precursor
So...what is the difference exactly? Both are chemically modified versions of natural products. Where is that line between synthetic and natural? Is it in the exact process in which the original product is purified or in the steps necessary to modify it? Which chemical modification steps are "natural" and which are "synthetic"? Was it the means by which they were first discovered?
Not gonna lie - love it when you do a chemistry mic drop.
I just wish I'd get an answer when I do that. I'm not asking those questions rhetorically I genuinely want to know how people draw the line between "natural" and "chemical" because the way people use those words it seems completely arbitrary.
If Stevia you buy in a store is "natural" then by the same definition so is aspartame or aspirin. If aspartame or aspirin are not natural because there are processing steps involved (purification or chemical modification) before they arrive on the shelf then Stevia isn't natural either.6 -
One diet soda a day is fine. Regular soda has calories with no nutritive value. The studies that showed diet soda to be bad were way too small and not conclusive and honestly can't back up if it is bad for you or not. Check out the Sept. 2017 issue of webmd magazine for a great article about the studies done on diet soda. It is free online
But my coke has sugar and sodium in it. Are we saying sugar and sodium aren't needed at all for a diet, and provide no nutritional value?
2 -
One diet soda a day is fine. Regular soda has calories with no nutritive value. The studies that showed diet soda to be bad were way too small and not conclusive and honestly can't back up if it is bad for you or not. Check out the Sept. 2017 issue of webmd magazine for a great article about the studies done on diet soda. It is free online
But my coke has sugar and sodium in it. Are we saying sugar and sodium aren't needed at all for a diet, and provide no nutritional value?
I think people draw a distinction between macros and nutrients. There is also a line drawn between things your body needs but it'd be hard not to get plenty of in a typical diet (like sodium) and things that are much less typical that you might want to actively seek out to include in your diet (like calcium or potassium). I don't think its that crazy to say that a coke doesn't have nutritional value because the "nutrition" it supplies is a very common macro and a common electrolyte that really doesn't have "value" to add to your typical diet.0 -
Thats a good question Natural vs Chemical. The FDA seems to be having a hard time to.
"From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is 'natural' because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances. For more information, see "Natural" on Food Labeling. " https://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/transparency/basics/ucm214868.htm0 -
pjbarclay55 wrote: »You are right im relating the two. My other post was saying sugars, i include them together Sugars/Sweetners) shouldn't but i do. Neither one are probably at all related sugar, aspartame and my personal fat loss but because it happened its kept me continuing what i'm doing. Just an interesting read below:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
How many people have you seen walking around with a double bacon cheeseburger and the largest french fry available...but it's all good because they're drinking a diet soda? I've seen lots...1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »pjbarclay55 wrote: »You are right im relating the two. My other post was saying sugars, i include them together Sugars/Sweetners) shouldn't but i do. Neither one are probably at all related sugar, aspartame and my personal fat loss but because it happened its kept me continuing what i'm doing. Just an interesting read below:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
How many people have you seen walking around with a double bacon cheeseburger and the largest french fry available...but it's all good because they're drinking a diet soda? I've seen lots...
I hear this all the time, and I know everyone rolls their eyes at me for doing this, but if my calorie limit just barely allows my most-favoritest Whataburger lunch every so often (and as it is, I'm sacrificing the mayo for cheese and skipping breakfast), no way am I going to waste any of those calories on full-sugar soda when the diet version still brings me joy (JOY, I tell you!), and I don't know why this particular meal-ordering phenomenon is so vexing to people.
If someone could come up with a zero-calorie bacon cheeseburger, I'd order that, too.18 -
JeepHair77 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »pjbarclay55 wrote: »You are right im relating the two. My other post was saying sugars, i include them together Sugars/Sweetners) shouldn't but i do. Neither one are probably at all related sugar, aspartame and my personal fat loss but because it happened its kept me continuing what i'm doing. Just an interesting read below:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
How many people have you seen walking around with a double bacon cheeseburger and the largest french fry available...but it's all good because they're drinking a diet soda? I've seen lots...
I hear this all the time, and I know everyone rolls their eyes at me for doing this, but if my calorie limit just barely allows my most-favoritest Whataburger lunch every so often (and as it is, I'm sacrificing the mayo for cheese and skipping breakfast), no way am I going to waste any of those calories on full-sugar soda when the diet version still brings me joy (JOY, I tell you!), and I don't know why this particular meal-ordering phenomenon is so vexing to people.
If someone could come up with a zero-calorie bacon cheeseburger, I'd order that, too.
This.3 -
JeepHair77 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »pjbarclay55 wrote: »You are right im relating the two. My other post was saying sugars, i include them together Sugars/Sweetners) shouldn't but i do. Neither one are probably at all related sugar, aspartame and my personal fat loss but because it happened its kept me continuing what i'm doing. Just an interesting read below:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
How many people have you seen walking around with a double bacon cheeseburger and the largest french fry available...but it's all good because they're drinking a diet soda? I've seen lots...
I hear this all the time, and I know everyone rolls their eyes at me for doing this, but if my calorie limit just barely allows my most-favoritest Whataburger lunch every so often (and as it is, I'm sacrificing the mayo for cheese and skipping breakfast), no way am I going to waste any of those calories on full-sugar soda when the diet version still brings me joy (JOY, I tell you!), and I don't know why this particular meal-ordering phenomenon is so vexing to people.
If someone could come up with a zero-calorie bacon cheeseburger, I'd order that, too.
Exactly. Choosing diet soda (which I enjoy the taste of) makes it much easier for me to fit in the higher calorie foods that I enjoy. Drinking regular soda over diet doesn't bring me the pleasure that having french fries with diet soda does.5 -
But being zero calorie, doesn't that just make it neutral? Why would it be 'not great' if it has zero impact on a person.lemurcat12 wrote: »
But being zero calorie, doesn't that just make it neutral? Why would it be 'not great' if it has zero impact on a person.
Yeah, this.
I understand "not great for you" to mean "bad for you," at least as it's normally used in the US, and I don't think diet soda is bad for you.
Does it have amazing health benefits? Well, not particularly, but who said it did? That's hardly my standard about what is required for anything I will consume. I don't think coffee has amazing health benefits, or homemade iced tea (I don't sweeten it, because I think sweet tea is icky) -- at least not unless one otherwise would be dehydrated -- but I consume them because I enjoy them. Same with the occasional diet coke.
I am from North America myself and not great to me doesn't mean bad...it means it's not great...that could mean it's good, neutral, bad...
you get to choose how you take it.
If you choose to take it as a negative that's how you choose to take it.
Diet soda is neither great, good nor bad...it is quite neutral as far as most peoples health and weight loss goes...
I've learned of "X is not great for you" as virtually always being equivalent to "it's unhealthy".5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions