diet soda or no diet soda

Unfortunately, the artificial sweetner business is huge and altho it is conspiracy theory, I am one on those who believes the FDA can and has been paid off in the past, (by Lobbyists, those companies/reps who financially support the research, etc), and if they have been that would make making all "scientific studies" unrealiable and potentially even invalid. Scientists will draw whatever conclusions and skew data to support the non-toxic/non-cancerous claims and studies if enough money is thrown at it.

C'mon we all know how big business is and how corruptable people can be (yes, pessimistic). Look at all the drugs that went to market WITH FDA APPROVAL (those had studies showing minimum harm, right>?) that were killing people within months of taking them. I dont trust that the FDA makes our health it's first priority. But it is YOUR choice what you put in your body, I just wish they would tell us the truth about products, since it's their damn job to!

I personally dont drink them because 1 diet soda will give me a killer headache for 2 days (feels like being hit with a bat to the back of the head). But if they dont affect you, feel free in moderation (as in everything else).

1 to 5 studies I could see, but 500? How are 500 studies, with at least half of them done independently and the under peer review, coming up with the same data? What I would like to see is data for actual deaths attributed to artificial sweetners since there are many people who tout it will kill you. That would good data to see.

A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

http://www.wnho.net/bernadene_magnuson_aspartame_flack.htm
http://www.wnho.net/abby_cormack_debating_bernadene_magnuson.htm

From the article:

Conflicts of Interest: The research was funded by Ajinomoto

The review was funded by Ajinomoto of Japan. Ajinomoto along with Monsanto have been the world's biggest producers and sellers of aspartame. The authors of the review had numerous, obvious conflicts of interests as described below. Yet this information was apparently not disclosed to the journal it was published in. The parent company of the journal stated in a press release that, "There were no known conflicts of interest with the sponsor or potential biases of the authors" (Informa 2007).

Gary M. Williams was the Chairman of the American Health Foundation (AHF) which was funded in part by The NutraSweet Company and other companies selling aspartame-containing products (Williams 1987). AHF Board of Directors have included representatives of PepsiCo and the National Soft Drink Association (CSPI 2003). The AHF received more than $163,000 in grants from Philip Morris. "Regarding an AHF press kit prepared by the PR firm, Ruder and Finn, William Ruder writes to Philip Morris: 'please note that we have handled it so that there is not one single mention of the problem of smoking and health.'" (CSPI 2003, Ruder 1975). In 1987, the American Health Foundation (AHF) convened a conference, Sweeteners: Health Effects where an AHF representative concluded that aspartame and other sweeteners were safe: "It is clear from the perspective of potential cancer risk that the sweeteners described in some detail in this report are safe and wholesome, and perhaps more so, than sugar. As we noted, it is our hope that this workshop will be the basis for international recognition of this fact, so that medical research effects can be directed effectively to areas more relevant to health maintenance." (Weisburger 1987)

Two of the authors, Robert Kroes and Gary M. Williams joined with Ian C. Munro, the president of the Cantox Health Sciences International corporate advocacy group, to work with Monsanto to review its herbicide, glyphosate (Williams 2000). The work of these authors, directly with Monsanto, was not disclosed in this aspartame review.

Cantox (now known as Intrinsik) specializes "in assisting clients in their efforts to develop, gain regulatory approval and market products nationally or internationally." Cantox is famous as a corporate advocacy group for whitewashing the dangers of Agent Orange, another toxic product created by Monsanto (Dominion 2007). In 2002, the president of Cantox, Ian C. Munro (see above), worked directly with NutraSweet company employees and consultants on an aspartame review where he stated: "After 30 plus years of rigorous scientific research, it is time to put questions of aspartame safety to rest. ... The continuing debate over such a 'nonissue' only serves to divert attention and the allocation of resources from more important health issues that need to be addressed." (Butchko 2002).

Bernadene Magnuson, the lead author of this review was also the Senior Scientific and Regulatory Consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International, a corporate advocacy group mentioned above (UT 2008). The president of Cantox had already called aspartame toxicity a "nonissue," yet the lead author of this review worked for Cantox!

@ kouzzzz, wasn't it proven by researchers that other types of artificial sweeteners (saccharin) had been directly linked to bladder cancer?

@ kouzzzz, wasn't it proven by researchers that other types of artificial sweeteners (saccharin) had been directly linked to bladder cancer?

In the 1970s, lab studies demonstrated a significant link between high levels of saccharin consumption and the development of urinary bladder cancer in rats. For this reason, saccharin was put on the U.S. National Toxicology Program's list of cancer-causing substances in 1981. Warning labels were placed on products containing saccharin. However, subsequent testing showed that the pathway for saccharin-linked cancer in rats does not exist in human beings, and saccharin consumption therefore doesn't trigger bladder cancer in human populations.

To much controversy here, I would stay away.

Look at all the drugs that went to market WITH FDA APPROVAL (those had studies showing minimum harm, right>?) that were killing people within months of taking them.

Yes, and those products were quickly pulled from the market, too. Look at all those pet food recalls a few years ago... when a definite link between the product and damage was established, they pulled the food from the shelves. And that's for dogs and cats. I know of other pet-related products that were taken off the market with "claims" that it was harmful, when it was really one big pharm company merging with another and having duplicate products. And if that happens with pets' medications, you can bet it happens with peoples'.

I am cynical. I don't believe the government has my best interest at heart, but I do believe that I'm a little bit more valuable to them as a living, breathing voter and taxpayer than I would be as a corpse who drank diet soda.

FWIW... what I get from soda is an enjoyment of the taste, texture and caffeine. It gives me happiness. I don't like coffee and I'm not a big fan of tea. I'm sure I could find something to replace that "buzz" I get from it, but I don't see any need to since I'm not someone who has any adverse reactions to diet soda.

Of course, if someone feels nauseous, dizzy or get a headache after drinking it, they shouldn't. I get a rash if I use Ivory Soap or Bandaid brand bandages, so I don't use them. I don't tell other people who don't have that reaction to not use them.

http://www.wnho.net/bernadene_magnuson_aspartame_flack.htm
http://www.wnho.net/abby_cormack_debating_bernadene_magnuson.htm

From the article:

Conflicts of Interest: The research was funded by Ajinomoto

The review was funded by Ajinomoto of Japan. Ajinomoto along with Monsanto have been the world's biggest producers and sellers of aspartame. The authors of the review had numerous, obvious conflicts of interests as described below. Yet this information was apparently not disclosed to the journal it was published in. The parent company of the journal stated in a press release that, "There were no known conflicts of interest with the sponsor or potential biases of the authors" (Informa 2007).

Gary M. Williams was the Chairman of the American Health Foundation (AHF) which was funded in part by The NutraSweet Company and other companies selling aspartame-containing products (Williams 1987). AHF Board of Directors have included representatives of PepsiCo and the National Soft Drink Association (CSPI 2003). The AHF received more than $163,000 in grants from Philip Morris. "Regarding an AHF press kit prepared by the PR firm, Ruder and Finn, William Ruder writes to Philip Morris: 'please note that we have handled it so that there is not one single mention of the problem of smoking and health.'" (CSPI 2003, Ruder 1975). In 1987, the American Health Foundation (AHF) convened a conference, Sweeteners: Health Effects where an AHF representative concluded that aspartame and other sweeteners were safe: "It is clear from the perspective of potential cancer risk that the sweeteners described in some detail in this report are safe and wholesome, and perhaps more so, than sugar. As we noted, it is our hope that this workshop will be the basis for international recognition of this fact, so that medical research effects can be directed effectively to areas more relevant to health maintenance." (Weisburger 1987)

Two of the authors, Robert Kroes and Gary M. Williams joined with Ian C. Munro, the president of the Cantox Health Sciences International corporate advocacy group, to work with Monsanto to review its herbicide, glyphosate (Williams 2000). The work of these authors, directly with Monsanto, was not disclosed in this aspartame review.

Cantox (now known as Intrinsik) specializes "in assisting clients in their efforts to develop, gain regulatory approval and market products nationally or internationally." Cantox is famous as a corporate advocacy group for whitewashing the dangers of Agent Orange, another toxic product created by Monsanto (Dominion 2007). In 2002, the president of Cantox, Ian C. Munro (see above), worked directly with NutraSweet company employees and consultants on an aspartame review where he stated: "After 30 plus years of rigorous scientific research, it is time to put questions of aspartame safety to rest. ... The continuing debate over such a 'nonissue' only serves to divert attention and the allocation of resources from more important health issues that need to be addressed." (Butchko 2002).

Bernadene Magnuson, the lead author of this review was also the Senior Scientific and Regulatory Consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International, a corporate advocacy group mentioned above (UT 2008). The president of Cantox had already called aspartame toxicity a "nonissue," yet the lead author of this review worked for Cantox!

I don't doubt any company will have studies done in their favor, but there are ALWAYS studies done to counter results if the studies don't sound legitimate enough. Again, 500 studies have been done. Many by Universities and Journals of Medicine. I would doubt that everyone has been BOUGHT off.
As for Cantox, the rebuttal is an OPINION. You'd have to show some actual proof that they were compromised to show conspiracy. We're talking the health and actual lives of people so to take that lightly by a providing actual "poison" to people would have them brought up on charges.
Oh and I guess that blows your claim about aspartame being banned in Japan too. :laugh: You posting info about Ajinomoto discredits that bogus claim.
But keep trying. This is the way to learn how to debate.

Okay, seriously, bottom line here. What redeeming quality does soda have (diet or regular) for your health, your well-being, your happiness, that you can't get in some other way from some other (less questionable, less chemical, less manufactured crap) product/person/experience? If you can name just *one* good thing that soda has to offer that can't be found in something else that is better for you and offers you more in every way, then you could have an argument for having soda. But seriously - there isn't anything it really has to offer that you can't find better in some other product. Maybe this chemical or that one in soda is causing harm to your health. Maybe the combination of the chemicals in it is causing harm. Maybe there truly is no harm being done. But how is it making you a better, healthier, happier, fitter, smarter person? Why would you settle for filling your body with stuff that merely "doesn't hurt it" when you could be filling your body instead with things that help you be better in every way? Why waste a drinking opportunity on a soda? (I've only been off soda for a few weeks, so please believe I do understand the draw... but think about it. What are you really getting from drinking it? I've come to realize that all I was really getting was, maybe, not harmed by it. That's not a great reason to drink it, when I could be getting health benefits from drinking water or even juice (in moderation)!

Because I have a healthy relationship with food and sometimes I choose to consume things that I just plain enjoy.

Carbonation deteriorates your bone density. So does Caffeine when consumed in large quantities. That's before we talk about the artificial ingredients and colors that ARE KNOW carcinogenics. Fact from Biology educators.

Jillian Michaels talks about this issue pretty heavily. She drank a 6 pack of diet soda a day, and when she got her own tv spot after the biggest loser. They had her get tested for bone density as the staple example on the show. Come to find out she had beginning stages of osteopenia. She was 35 at the time.

That was from the soda. She cut it out entirely as a result.

If that don't motivate you, then consider this. Soda has ZERO nutritional value, in fact it's nutritional defeceit. What's that mean? It means it takes away rather than gives. Sure a soda a week, two cans a week not a big deal. As long as your not counting it as fluid intake. Drink as much water and more for every can you drink. But moderation is the key to it all.

Remember a 32 oz, is nearly three cans. And this is for diet. Don't get me started on the sugar and how high fructose interacts with your liver.

Sorry, being a diabetic, I drank and still do drink a fair amount of diet soda. My last bone density test was excellent. We cannot assume that her problem was from the diet soda without other factors being taken into consideration. One person does not a study, make.

Unless you are drinking massive quantities, I really wouldn't worry about it, the only think its going to impact is your wallet. The only think I know that carbonated beverages impact is GERD, as any gastroenterologist will tell you about reflux and stomach acid. It will not cause it, but it could aggravate it.

Worry more about yourself and your family. If you think it's "poison" then don't drink it. For us that do, don't judge us as being uneducated or clueless.

Thank you. I'm tired of the people whose jaws drop and tell me, "OMG you must have a single digit IQ and live in a cave. You would NEVER drink it you were smart and educated." I know not everyone does this, but for the ones that do it gets really old. I've made an educated decision to keep it in my diet. Everyone else can drink it or not. I don't care, but stop treating me like I'm an idiot.

Okay, seriously, bottom line here. What redeeming quality does soda have (diet or regular) for your health, your well-being, your happiness, that you can't get in some other way from some other (less questionable, less chemical, less manufactured crap) product/person/experience? If you can name just *one* good thing that soda has to offer that can't be found in something else that is better for you and offers you more in every way, then you could have an argument for having soda.

Diet soda = taste and carbonation without any calories. Yum.

do you have the source/study to prove that? preferably by an independent or not for profit organization? those typically tend to be the most unbiased.

Every once in awhile i'll get a 20 oz of coke zero or sprite zero. And i've been just fine. Down almost 50 lbs. Most things are okay in moderation (:

I have drank it all my life from when I was a kid until 21. 5 months ago I gave it up and while I don't necessarily think I lost anymore weight I do feel so much different. I drink nothing but water and decaf tea with nothing in it now. I have less cravings for sugar, I focus better, my skin is clearer, my teeth are whiter, I sleep better and exercise is easier for me.

Here's what it boils down to: There isn't sufficient enough evidence to show that diet soda has a negative impact on health (with the exception of a few PUK). People who don't like the taste, are concerned about THEIR health and the chemicals, or are "naturalists" don't have to worry about it. Those of us that like the taste, how it assists in weight loss because of the sweetness yet has no calories, and have no concerns about the chemicals in them based on scientific evidence at hand will still have it in moderation because we like it.
Worry more about yourself and your family. If you think it's "poison" then don't drink it. For us that do, don't judge us as being uneducated or clueless.

A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

First, just because it hasn't been proven to your satisfaction to be harmful, doesn't mean it isn't.

Google "Russel's Teapot".

You can choose to believe what you want to believe, and others can chose to believe what they want to believe. Your opinion doesn't get to supersede mine any more than mine can supersede yours.

Beliefs based on evidence >> beliefs base on naturalistic fallacy.

do you have the source/study to prove that? preferably by an independent or not for profit organization? those typically tend to be the most unbiased.

Here's a link to many studies done by several Medical Organizations:

http://www.aspartame-experts.com/aspartame_experts_science.html


A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

First, just because it hasn't been proven to your satisfaction to be harmful, doesn't mean it isn't. You can choose to believe what you want to believe, and others can chose to believe what they want to believe. Your opinion doesn't get to supersede mine any more than mine can supersede yours. Second, the OP asked for opinions about drinking diet soda. Those who are for it are certainly allowed to share their opinions, but so are those who are against it. If your ego is so fragile than an opposing opinion threatens you, perhaps debate posts like these are ones you ought to skip? Take a deep breath, go drink your beverage of choice and relax a bit - this isn't worth getting yourself so worked up over. Wow.

My opinion is backed by clinical trials and science. Again if it's found to be truly a detriment to health, I'm sure I'll change my stance on it just like when Pluto was actually found not to be a planet.
Lol, my dear I hardly get worked up over an issue like this.:laugh: But I will defend against falsified information being pushed by the ever "healthy than everyone else because I eat healthy" crowd. Sounds more like you don't like that I oppose the "healthy" option and that I'm in the Fitness business.
People like transparency. I'm not a sheep who just takes whatever is stated in the the Fitness industry as gospel. I will research and find out on my own. Again evidence doesn't show that aspartame has the negative effects that some here tout.


A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition