Diet soda
Options
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »rickiimarieee wrote: »Heather4448 wrote: »What is with all the soda posts lately?! Did Oz/Oprah do a segment on it or something?
No I'm not normally on the community much so I'm sorry if I seemed repetitive to the others. I was just at the store today and I bought a case of diet soda instead of a normal one and was curious.
No it was honestly just a question due to the chemicals and such in it.JustRobby1 wrote: »Here we go again. I have to ask what's next? Is drinking water going to make me fat and then kill me unless it's certified organic and comes from Whole Foods?
aspartame is a methylated dipeptide. It is digested into two amino acids and methanol in your stomach and no aspartame actually enters your blood (only the breakdown products I mentioned). It is a chemical in the same way that water is a chemical. There is not anything magical about it. You would get the exact same ingredient from taking a bite of chicken and a swig of orange juice and is therefore about as dangerous as chicken and orange juice are.
Thank you, just curious because there's so many different 'facts' on it. One saying it's so bad and the other saying it's fine.2 -
lol I'd hope not! Just looking for ways I can get my sugar kick/soda craving filled without gaining all the weight back that I've lost!TeacupsAndToning wrote: »rickiimarieee wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »rickiimarieee wrote: »Heather4448 wrote: »What is with all the soda posts lately?! Did Oz/Oprah do a segment on it or something?
No I'm not normally on the community much so I'm sorry if I seemed repetitive to the others. I was just at the store today and I bought a case of diet soda instead of a normal one and was curious.
No it was honestly just a question due to the chemicals and such in it.JustRobby1 wrote: »Here we go again. I have to ask what's next? Is drinking water going to make me fat and then kill me unless it's certified organic and comes from Whole Foods?
aspartame is a methylated dipeptide. It is digested into two amino acids and methanol in your stomach and no aspartame actually enters your blood (only the breakdown products I mentioned). It is a chemical in the same way that water is a chemical. There is not anything magical about it. You would get the exact same ingredient from taking a bite of chicken and a swig of orange juice and is therefore about as dangerous as chicken and orange juice are.
Thank you, just curious because there's so many different 'facts' on it. One saying it's so bad and the other saying it's fine.
I'm far from an expert but what I can tell you is that I have never met a person who was killed by diet coke.1 -
karintalley wrote: »karintalley wrote: »If a person don't like regular water. Can they substitute with diet soda. Since it's not bad for you at all it should be as good as water?
I don't like water so I drink crystal light. But what about diet coke instead of water?
Sure. Diet soda is basically carbonated water with a little flavoring.
Ok...Im not planning to do this. I don't think carbonation is good for my teeth. But I heard some time ago the caffeine and it will dehydrate me.
No, the caffeine thing is a myth. Caffeine is a very mild diuretic, you won't get dehydrated from drinking liquids containing caffeine.
What about coffee?0 -
karintalley wrote: »karintalley wrote: »karintalley wrote: »If a person don't like regular water. Can they substitute with diet soda. Since it's not bad for you at all it should be as good as water?
I don't like water so I drink crystal light. But what about diet coke instead of water?
Sure. Diet soda is basically carbonated water with a little flavoring.
Ok...Im not planning to do this. I don't think carbonation is good for my teeth. But I heard some time ago the caffeine and it will dehydrate me.
No, the caffeine thing is a myth. Caffeine is a very mild diuretic, you won't get dehydrated from drinking liquids containing caffeine.
What about coffee?
Same again, unless you're drinking back to back espresso2 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »karintalley wrote: »karintalley wrote: »karintalley wrote: »If a person don't like regular water. Can they substitute with diet soda. Since it's not bad for you at all it should be as good as water?
I don't like water so I drink crystal light. But what about diet coke instead of water?
Sure. Diet soda is basically carbonated water with a little flavoring.
Ok...Im not planning to do this. I don't think carbonation is good for my teeth. But I heard some time ago the caffeine and it will dehydrate me.
No, the caffeine thing is a myth. Caffeine is a very mild diuretic, you won't get dehydrated from drinking liquids containing caffeine.
What about coffee?
Same again, unless you're drinking back to back espresso
I drink 2-3 cups of black, strong coffee a day
It's a Swedish thing2 -
karintalley wrote: »karintalley wrote: »karintalley wrote: »If a person don't like regular water. Can they substitute with diet soda. Since it's not bad for you at all it should be as good as water?
I don't like water so I drink crystal light. But what about diet coke instead of water?
Sure. Diet soda is basically carbonated water with a little flavoring.
Ok...Im not planning to do this. I don't think carbonation is good for my teeth. But I heard some time ago the caffeine and it will dehydrate me.
No, the caffeine thing is a myth. Caffeine is a very mild diuretic, you won't get dehydrated from drinking liquids containing caffeine.
What about coffee?
It's the same. Coffee is basically water with flavoring, same as soda. You can count whatever fluids you're drinking toward whatever your liquid goals are (except alcohol, sadly).5 -
CynthiasChoice wrote: »@Aaron_K123 Your broccoli comment made me chuckle! But saying that none of what I said was actually true is not actually true.
You very well might be able to find a study out of the 10s of thousands of studies that was done in an animal model where the sample size was small and they had some finding of an insulin response or tumor growth or toxicity or whatever that was just on the edge of significant and really in the noise of the experiment given the sample so yes I suppose that is true. What I guess I meant is the point you were making was false because the suggestion was that those studies are particularly meaningful in comparison to the many large scale human trials that show no such issues. It is misleading to highlight those studies and ignore the ones that are much more relevant and have sample sizes where significance would be clear if found. When people do that I kind of feel they must just want it to be true that artificial sweetners are bad and I don't really understand that.
Here is the most current review of the scientific literature on the safety of sucralose in humans if you want to know. It is a metaanalysis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28558975
The full text is available here. It covers over a hundred different studies done in humans in addition to other animal models. I haven't even read this myself but I know the literature and am confident that what it will show you is that all studies in humans have shown no indications of any issues with sucrolose.14 -
karintalley wrote: »karintalley wrote: »karintalley wrote: »If a person don't like regular water. Can they substitute with diet soda. Since it's not bad for you at all it should be as good as water?
I don't like water so I drink crystal light. But what about diet coke instead of water?
Sure. Diet soda is basically carbonated water with a little flavoring.
Ok...Im not planning to do this. I don't think carbonation is good for my teeth. But I heard some time ago the caffeine and it will dehydrate me.
No, the caffeine thing is a myth. Caffeine is a very mild diuretic, you won't get dehydrated from drinking liquids containing caffeine.
What about coffee?
It's the same. Coffee is basically water with flavoring, same as soda. You can count whatever fluids you're drinking toward whatever your liquid goals are (except alcohol, sadly).
omg..that is great news. Thank you. Yeah...it sucks about the alcohol. I wish there were diet wine with no loss of alcohol just 0 calories!1 -
karintalley wrote: »karintalley wrote: »karintalley wrote: »karintalley wrote: »If a person don't like regular water. Can they substitute with diet soda. Since it's not bad for you at all it should be as good as water?
I don't like water so I drink crystal light. But what about diet coke instead of water?
Sure. Diet soda is basically carbonated water with a little flavoring.
Ok...Im not planning to do this. I don't think carbonation is good for my teeth. But I heard some time ago the caffeine and it will dehydrate me.
No, the caffeine thing is a myth. Caffeine is a very mild diuretic, you won't get dehydrated from drinking liquids containing caffeine.
What about coffee?
It's the same. Coffee is basically water with flavoring, same as soda. You can count whatever fluids you're drinking toward whatever your liquid goals are (except alcohol, sadly).
omg..that is great news. Thank you. Yeah...it sucks about the alcohol. I wish there were diet wine with no loss of alcohol just 0 calories!
Me too - 0 calorie wine would be awesome!1 -
rickiimarieee wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »rickiimarieee wrote: »Heather4448 wrote: »What is with all the soda posts lately?! Did Oz/Oprah do a segment on it or something?
No I'm not normally on the community much so I'm sorry if I seemed repetitive to the others. I was just at the store today and I bought a case of diet soda instead of a normal one and was curious.
No it was honestly just a question due to the chemicals and such in it.JustRobby1 wrote: »Here we go again. I have to ask what's next? Is drinking water going to make me fat and then kill me unless it's certified organic and comes from Whole Foods?
aspartame is a methylated dipeptide. It is digested into two amino acids and methanol in your stomach and no aspartame actually enters your blood (only the breakdown products I mentioned). It is a chemical in the same way that water is a chemical. There is not anything magical about it. You would get the exact same ingredient from taking a bite of chicken and a swig of orange juice and is therefore about as dangerous as chicken and orange juice are.
Thank you, just curious because there's so many different 'facts' on it. One saying it's so bad and the other saying it's fine.
There are not many facts, there is only reality and what people choose to say on the internet.
Aspartame is a dipeptide of the natural amino acids aspartate and phenylalanine common in all proteins with the carboxyl termini methylated into a methyl ester. Upon entering your stomach the peptide bond between the two amino acids is cleaved by peptidases and the methyl group is hydrolyzed into methanol. Studies have shown that no intact aspartame makes it into your blood, it is fully metabolized. The amount of aspartate phenylalanine and methanol you get from the amount of aspartame in a can of soda is very small relative to the amount you get from protein in your diet and consumption of various fruits or fruit juices. Those are the facts. That is what it physically is. You don't have to take my word for it, you just need to know how to vet sources and make sure what you are reading comes from someone who actually knows what they are talking about and isn't just some blog post from someone writing what amounts to their beliefs on the topic. Typically having no ads on the page is a good sign, scientific sources are the best usually.
Being able to vet sources is a very good life-skill to develop, without it you will be perpetually mislead. You can pick any topic and there will be plenty of blog posts on the internet saying completely different things about it, doesn't mean there is any actual confusion about what that thing is just that there are lots of people who like to post their feelings on the internet who don't particularly care if they have expertise in what they are speaking about.15 -
The Israeli study is quite well known. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25231862
I don't know if Scientific American is a respected science journal, but they've covered the Israeli study here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeteners-may-change-our-gut-bacteria-in-dangerous-ways/
This study obviously does not prove that artificial sweeteners affect the human micro biome, but it raises some interesting questions.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »CynthiasChoice wrote: »@Aaron_K123 Your broccoli comment made me chuckle! But saying that none of what I said was actually true is not actually true.
You very well might be able to find a study out of the 10s of thousands of studies that was done in an animal model where the sample size was small and they had some finding of an insulin response or tumor growth or toxicity or whatever that was just on the edge of significant and really in the noise of the experiment given the sample so yes I suppose that is true. What I guess I meant is the point you were making was false because the suggestion was that those studies are particularly meaningful in comparison to the many large scale human trials that show no such issues. It is misleading to highlight those studies and ignore the ones that are much more relevant and have sample sizes where significance would be clear if found. When people do that I kind of feel they must just want it to be true that artificial sweetners are bad and I don't really understand that.
Here is the most current review of the scientific literature on the safety of sucralose in humans if you want to know. It is a metaanalysis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28558975
The full text is available here. It covers over a hundred different studies done in humans in addition to other animal models. I haven't even read this myself but I know the literature and am confident that what it will show you is that all studies in humans have shown no indications of any issues with sucrolose.
I was posting above before I read this ^^. Thanks for the link.0 -
CynthiasChoice wrote: »The Israeli study is quite well known. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25231862
I don't know if Scientific American is a respected science journal, but they've covered the Israeli study here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeteners-may-change-our-gut-bacteria-in-dangerous-ways/
This study obviously does not prove that artificial sweeteners affect the human micro biome, but it raises some interesting questions.
Scientific American isn't a science journal at all, its a news magazine written by journalists who provide opinion articles and news stories.
If you wish to find out the latest consensus of current scientific research on a topic unflitered through journalism or internet blogs of people who are just cherrypicking the one study they heard about from a friend then this is what you can do:
Go to pubmed.gov, that is the repository of all published work in actual scientific journals.
Next in the search bar type something. For example "sucralose safety" and hit search.
Now lots of people know about this but even this can be super misleading because depending on your search term you can get thousands of publications of various quality all sorted just by the time they were published so all the top hits will be the recent ones, not necessarily the relevant ones.
Here is the trick. On the left bar after you search there is a a field called "Article types". On that click "Review"
What reviews are are they are the most respected members of a particular field coallating all of the studies on a given topic and summarizing them at the time the review is written. They will cite all of the studies so if there is a particular study you find interesting from reading the review you can follow up on that. But the review will give you a much better idea of the current scientific consensus on a topic than any random study you happen to pick would.
Here is the results page for reviews related to sucralose safety. The top one is a review written by Magnuson, Roberts and Nestman in 2017 which is the one I linked you. You can do the same process for aspartame or whatever else.
I think this is a much better way to go about it than reading news stories which frankly tend to be sensationalized *kitten* when it comes to science.
Cheers17 -
The Israeli study is quite well known. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25231862
Have you read the study itself or journalists writing their opinions and referencing the study? Also was the study done in mice or humans. I'm going to guess mice because human trials have been done and haven't shown those effects. Frankly if I have a choice between reading a human trial and a mouse trial I'm going to read the human trial. In which case, again, I'd ask why you would select the one mouse study that claims an effect over the current large number of human studies that do not show an effect. What is the purpose in doing that other than to search specifically for evidence of harm rather than to just search for what the current body of evidence is? I can tell you if you search for "evidence of harm" with pretty much anything, you will find something. That is not a good way of getting info.
My guess is because you source your information from news websites which prefer to publish stories on things that will grab peoples attention with edgy "new findings" that are "shocking" rather than looking at the actual scientific literature which is considerably more dry and difficult to understand.
Honestly I don't blame you, most people don't know how to read a scientific study and why would they most people aren't scientifically trained. The vast majority of people are going to get their information from news sources or their favorite blogger. But to be honest the news and internet bloggers do an absolute *kitten* job of representing the actual body of scientific evidence on topics like this. Which is probably why there is so much misinformation out there.
I mean if aspartame for example really does cause changes to our microbiome that are somehow problematic then so would chicken and so would orange juice because it is the same thing.8 -
karintalley wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Here we go again. I have to ask what's next? Is drinking water going to make me fat and then kill me unless it's certified organic and comes from Whole Foods?
Why do you even open these threads if they bother you so much?
So you know it all, good for you. Many posters don't. I have friends who are convinced diet coke fools your body to believe it drinks real sugar and make you fat. That is not an uncommon and unheard of opinion. Not to mention diet coke gives you cancer.
Both your friend and your last sentence are wrong, so there's that. And that's why we open these threads, so people who don't know don't get even more confused by hearing crap like that.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »CynthiasChoice wrote: »@Aaron_K123 Your broccoli comment made me chuckle! But saying that none of what I said was actually true is not actually true.
You very well might be able to find a study out of the 10s of thousands of studies that was done in an animal model where the sample size was small and they had some finding of an insulin response or tumor growth or toxicity or whatever that was just on the edge of significant and really in the noise of the experiment given the sample so yes I suppose that is true. What I guess I meant is the point you were making was false because the suggestion was that those studies are particularly meaningful in comparison to the many large scale human trials that show no such issues. It is misleading to highlight those studies and ignore the ones that are much more relevant and have sample sizes where significance would be clear if found. When people do that I kind of feel they must just want it to be true that artificial sweetners are bad and I don't really understand that.
Here is the most current review of the scientific literature on the safety of sucralose in humans if you want to know. It is a metaanalysis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28558975
The full text is available here. It covers over a hundred different studies done in humans in addition to other animal models. I haven't even read this myself but I know the literature and am confident that what it will show you is that all studies in humans have shown no indications of any issues with sucrolose.
"Collectively, critical review of the extensive database of research demonstrates that sucralose is safe for its intended use as a non-caloric sugar alternative."
You're absolutely correct. (Not that I expected anything else)2 -
unsuspectingfish wrote: »Honestly, the only thing you have to worry about is the sodium, but most of them don't have nearly as much as they used to, so unless you're drinking a TON, even that is probably a non-issue.
you realize most diet sodas have around 1% of your daily sodium? not much more than water and way less than milk! do you warn people about the sodium in milk, as well??5 -
rickiimarieee wrote: »Really? I mean I have no idea so im not gonna shut down that statement or anything but it just seems so unhealthy.
Losing or gaining weight is determined by your Calorie Deficit or Calorie Surplus. If your Calories In are greater than your Calories Out, you won't have a deficit, and won't lose weight. Something with zero calories will obviously not add to your Calories In. (It may possibly be unhealthy for other reasons, but that's a separate debate.)0 -
rickiimarieee wrote: »Really? I mean I have no idea so im not gonna shut down that statement or anything but it just seems so unhealthy.
Losing or gaining weight is determined by your Calorie Deficit or Calorie Surplus. If your Calories In are greater than your Calories Out, you won't have a deficit, and won't lose weight. Something with zero calories will obviously not add to your Calories In. (It may possibly be unhealthy for other reasons, but that's a separate debate.)
I eat 1,200 calories a day I'm pretty sedentary0 -
rickiimarieee wrote: »rickiimarieee wrote: »Really? I mean I have no idea so im not gonna shut down that statement or anything but it just seems so unhealthy.
Losing or gaining weight is determined by your Calorie Deficit or Calorie Surplus. If your Calories In are greater than your Calories Out, you won't have a deficit, and won't lose weight. Something with zero calories will obviously not add to your Calories In. (It may possibly be unhealthy for other reasons, but that's a separate debate.)
I eat 1,200 calories a day I'm pretty sedentary
If you are still concerned about diet soda, read through the thread linked on the first page. Aaron know's what he is talking about, as it's his profession. He's probably the best person on MFP to trust for information of this sort.
If he posts something that is over your head (and it certainly goes over mine sometimes) he's also good about explaining it in laymans terms. It's just not his "normal" language and he does get very technical at time. So ask for an explanation if you don't understand.
6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 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
- 952 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions