Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Diet Soda?
- Thread starter StackIt
- Start date
M
Mr.X
Guest
StackIt said:
Read a bit about aspartame - the staple of diet soda:
http://www.rense.com/health3/dcoke.htm
"The poison in Diet Coke is aspartame..."
http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/aspartame.html
Aspartame itself doesn’t have any calories, but basically, one of its ingredients, the amino acid phenylalanine, blocks production of serotonin, a nerve chemical that, among other activities, controls food cravings. As you might well imagine, a shortage of serotonin will make your brain and body scream for the foods that create more of this brain chemical—and those are the high-calorie, carbohydrate-rich snacks that can sabotage a dieter. Obviously, the more aspartame one ingests, the more heightened the effects. Simply put, aspartame appears to muddle the brain chemistry.
Diet soda, diet products are about the worst thing you can eat on a diet! They are packed with chemicals making you addicted to food. I don't recommend any "DIET" products anymore due to the new studies and information coming out over the last 2 years.
M
Mr.X
Guest
http://joi.ito.com/archives/2002/10/26/is_diet_coke_bad_for_you.html
scroll to:
Here are some highlights from the page:
scroll to:
Here are some highlights from the page:
M
Mr.X
Guest
StackIt said:
Splenda is just a spin on the problem, IMO.
WoNderWoMan25
New member
StackIt said:
I had diet soda a few years back while also having a stomach bug. Doesn't taste good AT ALL coming back up and that broke me (at once!) of my diet soda addition.
If I'm really craving soda these days, a sip or two of the regular stuff usually does the trick. About 4 ozs and I'm done.
WoNderWoMan25
New member
36drew said:
Consumed alone, yes... but if you need it, try combining something sweet (natural or artificial) with protein. usually eliminates that increase or stimulation of your appetite.
cyrex
New member
I was the unfortunate victem of a can of diet soda that had 'furmented' into formaldehyde. It made me sick for 4 days from just 1 sip. I was never a fan of diet soda in the first place. The company I work for keeps it stocked in the fridge (but refuses to buy water for us.. GRRR). I'll never again drink diet soda. Now the only time I have soda of any kind is once every 2 months IF I go to a movie on a sunday. So far it's been 6 months since I happened to goto a movie on a sunday but the next time I do I'll be grabbing a coke 
haha. It was my #1 enemy as a child. It allowed me to get over 200 lbs in elementary school ;-)
haha. It was my #1 enemy as a child. It allowed me to get over 200 lbs in elementary school ;-)
M
Mr.X
Guest
WoNderWoMan25 said:
I think you're not understanding how bad aspartame and related products are for you. read over the links I've posted, it goes beyond just hunger...
WoNderWoMan25
New member
Mr.X said:
Dude, I'm understanding it! No need for embalming fluid after the stuff causes cancer & kills you... That stuff will basically preserve you -- alive!
M
Mr.X
Guest
WoNderWoMan25 said:
there you go....see the product is very bad for your health.
psychedout
New member
I think consuming aspartame is just fine. Here is a piece of literature that is fairly newm 2003.
Med Pregl. 2003;56 Suppl 1:27-9.
[Controversies with aspartame]
[Article in Serbian]
Jankovic SM.
[email protected]
INTRODUCTION: Artificial sweeteners are nowadays inevitable food additives, since they provide necessary food diversity to people suffering from diabetes. Aspartame is the most frequently used artificial sweetener ever and its safety profile is much better than that of saccharin or cyclamate. It received marketing approval in 1973, but only 3 months later aspartame was withdrawn because of allegations based on improperly designed experimental studies dealing with its carcinogen effects on rodent brain. However, extensive studies using the same model did not confirm such suspicions, and aspartame received a second marketing approval. EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES: Almost two decades later an epidemiological study found a relationship between aspartame and an increased frequency of brain tumors in humans. However, this study included a short time span of observation, and it did not estimate actual intake of aspartame, which led to loss of validity. Later on no epidemiological studies found correlation between aspartame use and incidence of brain tumors in humans. Up to now the only safety concern about aspartame, which received valid scientific proofs, is pro-seizure action of its excessive intake. In patients with epilepsy, excessive intake of aspartame can decrease the threshold for seizures or prolong them once they appear. However, if the intake is not above the recommended level of 40 mg/kg b.w./day, aspartame is well tolerated even in this subpopulation. CONCLUSION: Based on detailed analysis of published studies on safety of aspartame, it should not be restricted, but used in recommended amounts.
Med Pregl. 2003;56 Suppl 1:27-9.
[Controversies with aspartame]
[Article in Serbian]
Jankovic SM.
[email protected]
INTRODUCTION: Artificial sweeteners are nowadays inevitable food additives, since they provide necessary food diversity to people suffering from diabetes. Aspartame is the most frequently used artificial sweetener ever and its safety profile is much better than that of saccharin or cyclamate. It received marketing approval in 1973, but only 3 months later aspartame was withdrawn because of allegations based on improperly designed experimental studies dealing with its carcinogen effects on rodent brain. However, extensive studies using the same model did not confirm such suspicions, and aspartame received a second marketing approval. EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES: Almost two decades later an epidemiological study found a relationship between aspartame and an increased frequency of brain tumors in humans. However, this study included a short time span of observation, and it did not estimate actual intake of aspartame, which led to loss of validity. Later on no epidemiological studies found correlation between aspartame use and incidence of brain tumors in humans. Up to now the only safety concern about aspartame, which received valid scientific proofs, is pro-seizure action of its excessive intake. In patients with epilepsy, excessive intake of aspartame can decrease the threshold for seizures or prolong them once they appear. However, if the intake is not above the recommended level of 40 mg/kg b.w./day, aspartame is well tolerated even in this subpopulation. CONCLUSION: Based on detailed analysis of published studies on safety of aspartame, it should not be restricted, but used in recommended amounts.
psychedout
New member
Artificial sweeteners—do they bear a carcinogenic risk?
M. R. Weihrauch* and V. Diehl
Department of Internal Medicine I of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
* Correspondence to: Dr M. R. Weihrauch, Immunologisches Labor Haus 16, Uniklinik Koeln, Joseph-Stelzmann-Strasse 9, 50924 Koeln, Germany. Tel: +49-221-4784488; Fax: +49-221-4785912; Email: [email protected]
Artificial sweeteners are added to a wide variety of food, drinks, drugs and hygiene products. Since their introduction, the mass media have reported about potential cancer risks, which has contributed to undermine the public's sense of security. It can be assumed that every citizen of Western countries uses artificial sweeteners, knowingly or not. A cancer-inducing activity of one of these substances would mean a health risk to an entire population. We performed several PubMed searches of the National Library of Medicine for articles in English about artificial sweeteners. These articles included ‘first generation’ sweeteners such as saccharin, cyclamate and aspartame, as well as ‘new generation’ sweeteners such as acesulfame-K, sucralose, alitame and neotame. Epidemiological studies in humans did not find the bladder cancer-inducing effects of saccharin and cyclamate that had been reported from animal studies in rats. Despite some rather unscientific assumptions, there is no evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. Case–control studies showed an elevated relative risk of 1.3 for heavy artificial sweetener use (no specific substances specified) of >1.7 g/day. For new generation sweeteners, it is too early to establish any epidemiological evidence about possible carcinogenic risks. As many artificial sweeteners are combined in today's products, the carcinogenic risk of a single substance is difficult to assess. CONCLUSION: According to the current literature, the possible risk of artificial sweeteners to induce cancer seems to be negligible.
M. R. Weihrauch* and V. Diehl
Department of Internal Medicine I of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
* Correspondence to: Dr M. R. Weihrauch, Immunologisches Labor Haus 16, Uniklinik Koeln, Joseph-Stelzmann-Strasse 9, 50924 Koeln, Germany. Tel: +49-221-4784488; Fax: +49-221-4785912; Email: [email protected]
Artificial sweeteners are added to a wide variety of food, drinks, drugs and hygiene products. Since their introduction, the mass media have reported about potential cancer risks, which has contributed to undermine the public's sense of security. It can be assumed that every citizen of Western countries uses artificial sweeteners, knowingly or not. A cancer-inducing activity of one of these substances would mean a health risk to an entire population. We performed several PubMed searches of the National Library of Medicine for articles in English about artificial sweeteners. These articles included ‘first generation’ sweeteners such as saccharin, cyclamate and aspartame, as well as ‘new generation’ sweeteners such as acesulfame-K, sucralose, alitame and neotame. Epidemiological studies in humans did not find the bladder cancer-inducing effects of saccharin and cyclamate that had been reported from animal studies in rats. Despite some rather unscientific assumptions, there is no evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. Case–control studies showed an elevated relative risk of 1.3 for heavy artificial sweetener use (no specific substances specified) of >1.7 g/day. For new generation sweeteners, it is too early to establish any epidemiological evidence about possible carcinogenic risks. As many artificial sweeteners are combined in today's products, the carcinogenic risk of a single substance is difficult to assess. CONCLUSION: According to the current literature, the possible risk of artificial sweeteners to induce cancer seems to be negligible.
psychedout
New member
And if you don't know, Aspartame is a dipeptide of Aspartic acid and Phenylalanine.
You'd very likely obtain more of this dipeptide from your NORMAL food intake during the course of a day (and its subsequent proteolysis) than from ingesting aspartame from artificially-sweetened products.
Note, I am discussing Aspartame in its relation to major health issues such as cancer. In which case the evidence, IMO, seems to point in other directions.
Based on personal experience, I do agree that it can contribute to hunger swings. However, in terms of detriment to overall health, I believe the effects of Aspartame to be negligble.
You'd very likely obtain more of this dipeptide from your NORMAL food intake during the course of a day (and its subsequent proteolysis) than from ingesting aspartame from artificially-sweetened products.
Note, I am discussing Aspartame in its relation to major health issues such as cancer. In which case the evidence, IMO, seems to point in other directions.
Based on personal experience, I do agree that it can contribute to hunger swings. However, in terms of detriment to overall health, I believe the effects of Aspartame to be negligble.
M
Mr.X
Guest
Paid for by your local Coca Cola and pepsi producer!
Hey, if you want to drink diet soda and kill yourself, go right on bro...no problem. There were studies that smoking was good for you in the 50s, hell same for drinking.
psychedout , bro you're right, YOU drink as much diet soda as you want!
Hey, if you want to drink diet soda and kill yourself, go right on bro...no problem. There were studies that smoking was good for you in the 50s, hell same for drinking.
psychedout , bro you're right, YOU drink as much diet soda as you want!
psychedout
New member
Mr.X said:
I consume an average of 2 or 3 cans per week. I do not believe that it will have an apprecaible effect on my health. I do always keep an open mind on issues though. It just so-happens to be that the evidence I see points to aspartame being safe. Can I prove this? No, of course not. Any individual who has any concept of the Nature of Science (NOS) will be able to indenitfy that there is indeed no such concept as proof. There is merely evidence from various sources that get mounded against one another. Do we have to consider bias in research? Certainly. Have I considered it at this point? To an exten yes. And based on what I have seen presented from both sides of the coin, I would contend that aspartame is indeed fine for consumption. The negative effects it may possess are negligble in the short term and long run. Is it healthy? No, I have yet to read anything to suggest that aspartame will yeild some sort of health benefit. This in its own might be enough for people to avoid its useage. However, for the overwhelming majority of people, consider the alternative. A 355ml can of traditional soda contains typically 35-45 grams of sugar. Whats worse? A pinch of aspartame or 6 tbsp of sugar?
Mr. X,
You are obviously against Aspartame ingestion, as well as other artificial sweeteners. So my question is, do you buy unsweeted protein powders or those sweetened only with Stevia? Almost every flavored power uses AceK, Sucralose, or both (Aspartame is rarely used nowadays), aside from the few sweetened with Stevia.
From my experience, Stevia sweetened powders don't taste good at all, and unflavored taste like shit. And it seems for most people that get unsweetened powders, they mix is with some sort of diet beverage (like Crystal Light) that contains artificial sweeteners anyway.
So am I right that you're basically saying ALL artificial sweeteners, not just Aspartame, should be avoided?
You are obviously against Aspartame ingestion, as well as other artificial sweeteners. So my question is, do you buy unsweeted protein powders or those sweetened only with Stevia? Almost every flavored power uses AceK, Sucralose, or both (Aspartame is rarely used nowadays), aside from the few sweetened with Stevia.
From my experience, Stevia sweetened powders don't taste good at all, and unflavored taste like shit. And it seems for most people that get unsweetened powders, they mix is with some sort of diet beverage (like Crystal Light) that contains artificial sweeteners anyway.
So am I right that you're basically saying ALL artificial sweeteners, not just Aspartame, should be avoided?
M
Mr.X
Guest
psychedout said:
Just to get you on the same page. During the approval of aspartame as a diet product, the FDA ignored over 20 studies on rat fatalities and human injuries from the product.
95% of the studies are paid and funded by Coca Cola and Pepsi. Even other diet producers pitch in. It's very bias and very subjective.
Coca cola and pepsi sued over 74 private research companies and universities citing slander on their diet beverages due to studies released by those institutions about diet sodas.
There are studies and if you look hard enough you'll find them.
psychedout
New member
Mr.X said:
Going to go look for them.
psychedout
New member
alphaIII said:
Any type of poly-chlorinated sugar (i.e. Sucralose) poses far greater risks than aspartame.
M
Mr.X
Guest
alphaIII said:
I just eat real meals: chicken, beef, fish etc... I started getting away from protein powders recently, but the ones I have are unsweetened.
I avoid all artificial sweetners and suggest the same to all my clients.
WoNderWoMan25
New member
psychedout said:
Maybe it's just me... but if I use it as a sugar substitute in unsweeted tea or coffee, it makes my tongue feel funny. Can't be a GOOD thing.
fiction agent
New member
seems about right.
pot is bad. alcohol is good. Diet Soda is a good staple of any diet. there is nothing wrong with fast food. Red Bull really does give you magical energy.
really can't trust anything these days. lol.
pot is bad. alcohol is good. Diet Soda is a good staple of any diet. there is nothing wrong with fast food. Red Bull really does give you magical energy.
really can't trust anything these days. lol.
M
Mr.X
Guest
36drew said:
because of the billions of dollars these companies stand to lose if the FDA didn't approve it, just to a search on the FDA and reality of how it works
M
Mr.X
Guest
fiction agent said:
HAHAHA!
psychedout
New member
Well Mr.X. If the studies do indeed exist, someone has gone to some pretty great lengths to remove them. I spent about 2 hours trying to find them and couldn't find one of the original animal studies. Only anectodal recreations of them. Perhaps I will check on of the Universities libraries.
Chaddycakes
New member
Why not just cut it out totally? After drinking more water for the past couple months i feel absolutly no urge to drink pop anymore.psychedout said:
Pop has tons of sugar(or aspertame) and has carbon dioxide. Okay lets think of this in a logical way. There are thousands of people on this forum that agree fructose is bad for you. Aspartame is a man made chemical. Man made = processed crap that has to have some effect on the body because it isn't natual. And last but not least carbon dioxide is one of the gases that we breath out of our lungs because our body doesn't accept it. So why would you want to ingest it into your body?
psychedout
New member
Chaddycakes said:
Of course water is healthier than diet soda. But diet soda is healthier than regular soda.
Fructose is not bad for you.
The_Chemist
New member
psychedout said:
well said.
The_Chemist
New member
Mr.X said:
Excellent points on both sides. Very interesting thread which I would like to see continued, as I am a consumer of Artificial sweetners. Mostly from Diet pop/crystal light and protien powders.
One point for both of you to consider though: Splenda!
From what Ive read, this is niether sugar nor An artificial sweetner but rather a dehydrated sugar substrate which no study has proved negative results. I would love to hear both of your opinions on this.
Lifterforlife
New member
I haven't read through this whole post...so if this has been brought up already, my apologies.
Stevia may be a good alternative. Stevia does not affect blood sugar metabolism according to most experts. Some studies even report that Stevia reduces plasma glucose levels in normal adults.
Stevia may be a good alternative. Stevia does not affect blood sugar metabolism according to most experts. Some studies even report that Stevia reduces plasma glucose levels in normal adults.
The_Chemist
New member
bump
red the ingredients in Splenda today. Dextrose, Maltodextrin, Sucralose.
Any thoughts?
red the ingredients in Splenda today. Dextrose, Maltodextrin, Sucralose.
Any thoughts?
NorgePrecision
New member
My 8th grade Algebra teacher died from a tumor when she was in her early 30's. I remembered that she had a diet coke sitting on her desk every single day I walked in that room. That is sad.
The_Chemist
New member
bump
