Is it true that diet soda makes you gain weight?

[ArchAngel777]

Then why does drinking diet soda containing Aspartame give some people splitting headaches, when they don't get that effect from drinking the non-diet version of that soda, or Tomato juice, or blueberries, etc.

For the same reason that some people get the shits when they eat eggs or oatmeal. Each person is an individual with individual sensitivities. This applies to all sorts of foods. Maybe Peanut Butter is just terrible since some people are allergic to it? Maybe Gluten is bad for you because some people have Celiacs? The rule of individuality applies here.

https://theoutline.com/post/842/diet-coke-is-not-killing-you

 

[Torn Mind]

Uh, sure... You do know that correlation does not equal causation? Most people that drink diet soda use it to feed their other desires. They merely take the diet soda so that they can have another dessert, which they like more than soda.

It always gets me, overweight and obese people will make any excuse in the world from making changes. You don't get diabetes from diet soda. You get it from a terrible diet of highly processed foods and general laziness, and when combined, is synergistic to create a perfect environment to develop Type 2.

Life is all about choices. You can do what you want, but unless you are following a perfectly healthy diet (water only, purely unprocessed food) and never, ever cheat, you are just full of shit trying to feign some level of "this is bad for you". I am sure YOU never do anything that is bad, right? *shrug* to each your own, but don't make excuses for your health conditions.

Going from soda to water is ideal, yes. Going from soda to diet soda is still an improvement. So saying "I'll just keep drinking regular because diet is no better" is just stupid reasoning. Unless you make the switch to water, you are basically just an excuse maker and trying to smear someone who is actually trying to improve their situation.

Joe Blow: Wait, you are eating canned veggies? Those are bad for you! Sodium and all!
Joe Blow: Continues to eats a huge ass burger with his fries.

Don't you see the irony? Changes are about improving where you are currently at, not for an excuse to *not* make changes.

It is simple people - if 80% of your calories are from minimally processed whole foods and you exercise with at least some effort 3x a week, you will be healthier than 99% of Americans. Yes, the very same ones that tell you "diet soda is terrible for you!". It really is that simple. In this case, when I see posts like the above, I see "the perfect" being the enemy of "the good". You won't ever have perfect, so choose good.

Practically all nutritional advice uses the weaker terms of linked because the body of knowledge has yet to reach the point that surefire absolutes that other branches of science, like classical physics or chemistry, has reached. "Risk" is not used in the colloquial sense, but rather specific jargon of using formal statistics, but that always gets lost in translation to readers with no education in those subject matters, which are those who never needed college statistics.

New research is always coming out, and that statement was based on one from Medical College of Wisconsin and Marquette University.

If you want to do a proper scientific refutation and not drag in a philosophical or legal one-liner of intellectual laziness, read up on the study in its entirety and then try to replicate it yourself. Bringing in Aristotle to the scientific party is like a knife in a gun point. There is no intellectual value from it. Every fucking scientist has learned correlation is not causation. That's exact reason why practically every nutrition article has such nuanced, guarded language.

Without properly establishing that diet soda is necessarily better than regular in all situations, then assertion that one can stay with regular has legitimate cause. If they are about the same, then either can be consumed without any discretion or care whatsoever.


From: http://theconversation.com/artificial-sweeteners-linked-to-diabetes-and-obesity-95314

The new research, from the Medical College of Wisconsin and Marquette University, looked at some biological effects of sweeteners in rats and in cell cultures. They wanted to know if artificial sweeteners affect how food is used and stored. These are called metabolic changes and the research combined many different aspects of metabolism to build an overall picture.
The team also looked at the impact of sweeteners on blood vessel health by studying how these substances affect the cells that form the inner lining of blood vessels.
The scientists gave rats food that was high in either sugar (glucose or fructose) or calorie-free artificial sweeteners (aspartame or acesulfame potassium). After three weeks they saw significant negative changes in both groups of rats. These changes included the concentrations of blood lipids (fats).

 

[ArchAngel777]

Without properly establishing that diet soda is necessarily better than regular in all situations, then assertion that one can stay with regular has legitimate cause. If they are about the same, then either can be consumed without any discretion or care whatsoever.

This is the old "burden of proof" argument. Each side claims the other has the burden of proof. Just because one simple aspect (on rats) was isolated and tested, doesn't make the claim that "both are equally bad" a true statement. It is true only in that test and context. My argument would be that the burden of proof is greater for those who believe that diet soda is worse than sugared soda. But, then you will claim the burden of proof is on me and that argument never really goes anywhere, in religion, science, or otherwise.

Additionally, not all diet soda uses artificial sweeteners. Stevia, comes to mind, which is a natural product. You would mean to tell me that sugared soda is still better than a diet soda sweetened with Stevia? If so, can you back up that claim?

I won't get roped into an endless retort, not worth my time, nor yours. If science becomes advanced enough to factually state that in X,Y,Z circumstances S is better than D - sure, then we must accept that. We are FAR, FAR from that. That leaves us with anecdotes and common sense. Plenty of very healthy people drink diet soda. What is your explanation for that, if this is universally bad? Specifically, why am I perfectly healthy, despite the fact that I supposedly drink this "poison"? Again, not gonna get roped into an endless debate where nothing can be proved beyond citing correlative studies that don't use controls and proper reporting. Most studies, micro or macro have nowhere near the level of detail required to make any matter of fact statements. So, I don't see why one should be extremely dogmatic.

On a side note, I'd like to read the actual study for myself. Too many questions, and that site is actually just a commentary on it (Oh, that isn't a criticism, I do the same thing)

Anyhow, two quotes I really loved from that:

What does this mean for the average consumer of artificial sweeteners? As the study was performed in animals and not humans it would be wrong to draw firm conclusions about what might happen in people. The findings of the study do, however, add to the growing body of research that suggests that sweeteners are not benign alternatives to sugar.

I agree, it isn't benign. My whole argument, thus far, and always has been one of realism. People will naturally crave things that are probably not the best. We should moderate that.

It is likely that the best advice is the blandest: everything in moderation. There is no such thing as good or bad food, only good or bad amounts. Maybe avoid consuming too much of either sugar or sweetener, especially in drinks.

So if you drink two sodas a day, maybe switch one out for a diet? Maybe. Or maybe, you know, just live a little and clean up the rest of your terrible diet? Most people just eat atrociously. I have a hard time believing anyone would contest me on that anecdote that is clearly visible.

People are not eating enough veggies, nowhere near enough. Way to much highly processed food. This is likely to have much much larger consequences than a moderate amount of regular or diet soda.

And, for what it is worth, this provides another interesting perpsective.

https://reason.com/2018/05/25/dont-ditch-diet-soda/#comments

I'll finish with this statement (I value my time too much, so I won't be responding further) - There are plenty of intelligent people on both sides of this debate. Both seem to cherry pick their research, or at least, claim the other side did. Both will claim the "money" behind the research. In the end, this is just ad nauseam. People are gonna do what they are gonna do, regardless. I just personally hope people look at their entire diet, not just one small part of it. Any change in a better direction is a good change IMO.

 

[Torn Mind]

This is the old "burden of proof" argument. Each side claims the other has the burden of proof. Just because one simple aspect (on rats) was isolated and tested, doesn't make the claim that "both are equally bad" a true statement. It is true only in that test and context. My argument would be that the burden of proof is greater for those who believe that diet soda is worse than sugared soda. But, then you will claim the burden of proof is on me and that argument never really goes anywhere, in religion, science, or otherwise.

Additionally, not all diet soda uses artificial sweeteners. Stevia, comes to mind, which is a natural product. You would mean to tell me that sugared soda is still better than a diet soda sweetened with Stevia? If so, can you back up that claim?

I won't get roped into an endless retort, not worth my time, nor yours. If science becomes advanced enough to factually state that in X,Y,Z circumstances S is better than D - sure, then we must accept that. We are FAR, FAR from that. That leaves us with anecdotes and common sense. Plenty of very healthy people drink diet soda. What is your explanation for that, if this is universally bad? Specifically, why am I perfectly healthy, despite the fact that I supposedly drink this "poison"? Again, not gonna get roped into an endless debate where nothing can be proved beyond citing correlative studies that don't use controls and proper reporting. Most studies, micro or macro have nowhere near the level of detail required to make any matter of fact statements. So, I don't see why one should be extremely dogmatic.

Still retorting on mere technicalities, I see.

You're talking to a different individual than the others and projecting their biases onto me, another intellectual misstep.

People can drink diet soda because it is generally "harmless". So is soda, which is basically high-fructose corn syrup or sugar. They all get converted into substances that, at face value, won't cause anyone to drop dead/cause disease and are normally utilized by the body. For someone who actually needs a jolt, guzzling the empty calories from normal soda might actually be expedient and beneficial to achieve that end. In fact, in my younger years, my gut response was how the hell can glucose or fructose be that bad?

Yes, it is important to point out what specific sweeteners are of concern because each chemical is different. Sucralose seems to be harmless as it is practically inert. Stevia too. However, most sodas do not contain stevia. The ones that do cater to a different audience that the Diet Coke crowd. Zevia's marketing emphasizes all-natural and healthy. So, it is likely those consumers are already ahead of the curve when it comes to the rest of their diet and thus will not suffer. It is also has no "linked" issues, however questionable, that aspartame might have.
The ancient old school sweetener, sugar of lead, has been known to be a poison for centuries.

I don't consume diet because it tastes worse than regular soda and because I have no insecurities about becoming fat or diabetic. The marketing messages that people get are also wretched myths. It won't miraculously make anyone thinner, younger-looking, or "healthier". For me to gamble at the possibility of a future health issue over something that offers me no benefits is simply not worth it. Normal soda is a temporary pleasure food. I may buy some grape soda for two weeks over an entire year to satisfy my liking of artificial grape flavor. But soda is not a satisfying thirst quencher; I find Gatorade and Powerade to be the best at doing that.

No one is taking that study on the level of dogma. It's just a matter of whether the end consumer can consider it as credible when making the gamble in deciding to consume or not consume the product.

 

[TheVrolok]

In a word? Yes.

 

[whm1974]

Speaking of Stevia sweeten diet soft drinks.... How come this isn't far more common then it is?

And speaking of the Stevia leave, how come I did not even hear about it until well into the 2000's?

 

[Muadib]

Speaking of Stevia sweeten diet soft drinks.... How come this isn't far more common then it is?

And speaking of the Stevia leave, how come I did not even hear about it until well into the 2000's?

Stevia has been around since the 70's in Japan. Here in the US, I first saw Stevia in the 80's in health food stores. It just never became popular here until the 2000's.

 

[Kaido]

Speaking of Stevia sweeten diet soft drinks.... How come this isn't far more common then it is?

And speaking of the Stevia leave, how come I did not even hear about it until well into the 2000's?

Because it tastes funky. Go try a diet soda with Stevia & then try one with Sucralose.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Uh, sure... You do know that correlation does not equal causation? Most people that drink diet soda use it to feed their other desires. They merely take the diet soda so that they can have another dessert, which they like more than soda.

It always gets me, overweight and obese people will make any excuse in the world from making changes. You don't get diabetes from diet soda. You get it from a terrible diet of highly processed foods and general laziness, and when combined, is synergistic to create a perfect environment to develop Type 2.

Life is all about choices. You can do what you want, but unless you are following a perfectly healthy diet (water only, purely unprocessed food) and never, ever cheat, you are just full of shit trying to feign some level of "this is bad for you". I am sure YOU never do anything that is bad, right? *shrug* to each your own, but don't make excuses for your health conditions. -- I see your wallowing in ignorance! - There are many causes of diabetes and some of them have nothing to do with what you consume! But of course you have no clue that Type 1 diabetes is usually hereditary and even type 2 can be caused by other factors besides -- as you stated - You get it from a terrible diet of highly processed foods and general laziness, and when combined, is synergistic to create a perfect environment to develop Type 2. Since you are wallowing in ignorace how can you possibly expect p[eople to take what you say at face value??

Going from soda to water is ideal, yes. Going from soda to diet soda is still an improvement. So saying "I'll just keep drinking regular because diet is no better" is just stupid reasoning. Unless you make the switch to water, you are basically just an excuse maker and trying to smear someone who is actually trying to improve their situation. -- actually both diet and regular soda have there own problems -- here is a link -- https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/337...ce-and-find-theyre-both-as-bad-as-each-other/

Joe Blow: Wait, you are eating canned veggies? Those are bad for you! Sodium and all!
Joe Blow: Continues to eats a huge ass burger with his fries. -- even this is very inaccurate!! Canned veggies are okay for you if you rinse the veggies before cooking there by getting rid of a large quantity of salt!@ What is wrong with a huge ass hamburger and fries on occasion? Nothing!! But eating that everyday -- now we have issues!!

Don't you see the irony? Changes are about improving where you are currently at, not for an excuse to *not* make changes. - I see no irony! I only see irony in your stated facts andf what you claim with NO proof or links to back up your misguided assertioons.....Oh by the way -- 3 people with phd`s from a gym do not count!

It is simple people - if 80% of your calories are from minimally processed whole foods and you exercise with at least some effort 3x a week, you will be healthier than 99% of Americans. Yes, the very same ones that tell you "diet soda is terrible for you!". It really is that simple. In this case, when I see posts like the above, I see "the perfect" being the enemy of "the good". You won't ever have perfect, so choose good.

When I see posts like your I am appalled that you would actually believe that your word alone is credible.....any links or supportive evidence to back up your diatribe??

 

[whm1974]

Because it tastes funky. Go try a diet soda with Stevia & then try one with Sucralose.

Go buy me at least a 12 pack and I drink it and let you know. Dude I put Stevia in my coffee and oatmeal. I'm will be fine with it in soda.

 

[Kaido]

Go buy me at least a 12 pack and I drink it and let you know. Dude I put Stevia in my coffee and oatmeal. I'm will be fine with it in soda.

That wasn't an attack - everyone interprets flavors differently, and most people can get used to new flavors over time. However, the majority of people don't like Stevia's taste, which is why it hasn't taken off:

‘Consumers are not satisfied with its taste’: FMCG Gurus research flags shortcomings of stevia

Consumers are increasingly working to cut their sugar intake. But, according to a recent poll from consumer research and insight provider FMCG Gurus, shoppers are also unconvinced by one of the most common natural alternatives: stevia.

www.foodnavigator.com

To some people, it's the opposite - they're Sucralose-sensitive & it tastes a zillion times more sweet than sugar, so they can't stand it. They're still working on why things taste different to different people:

Study: Why Fake Sweeteners Taste Disgusting to Some People But Not Others - Philadelphia Magazine

I’ve never understood how my husband doesn’t like cilantro. “It’s so lemony and bright and fresh and DELICIOUS!” I’ll trill, as a take a big […]

www.phillymag.com

Stevia blends help. For example, Sated (a low-carb Soylent competitor) has a naturally-sweetened version made up of a blend of Stevia, monk fruit, and erythritol. It doesn't hit my tastebuds & back of my throat like straight-up Stevia does with the funky flavor. On the other hand, I'd imagine that Stevia is a better option than artificial sugars, which are starting to not look so good:

Low-Calorie Sweeteners Connected to Diabetes

Giving up sugar to rely on low-calorie sweeteners seems like a good idea for your diet. But there's a hidden danger connected to artificial sweeteners: diabetes.

www.newsmax.com

Per that article, the five FDA-approved fake sugars are acesulfame potassium (Ace-K), saccharin, aspartame, neotame, and sucralose. Also, as far as I know, neotame (aka Newtame) isn't even required to be listed on the ingredients level, nor, as a derivative of aspartame, required to have a PKA warning (last I read, anyway). Fake sugars are also a concern for consumption in children:

Not Just Sugar: The 8 Sweeteners You Need to Know About

Today, the American Academy of Pediatrics published “The Use of Nonnutritive Sweeteners in Children.” The report calls for more research into sweeteners and their effect on kids, especially when it comes to the risk for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

www.healthline.com

Stuff like Stevia & monk fruit seem like better options because they're natural instead of artificial, so if it works for you, more power to you!

 

[IronWing]

Still nope.

 

[mopardude87]

When you put something into your body with that many chemicals, yeah i can't imagine it being that good at all for ya. I used to be a avid soda drinker and sticking to water i have lost over 35 pounds in 2 months. That did include me quitting beer as well completely. Cutting out all the sugar helped. I can vouch about trying diet drinks and cause of those sugar substitutes i at least found myself drinking more of it like i was addicted.

Avoid fructose corn syrup, soda of any kind and you will start feeling much better, i know i do.

 

[UsandThem]

an average can of diet soda has about 4 calories? so you will need about 900 cans of diet soda to get about 3600 calories (~1lb of fat)

so unless your doing so, i wouldnt worry

Free iPod?

Just get it over with already.

 

[TheVrolok]

an average can of diet soda has about 4 calories? so you will need about 900 cans of diet soda to get about 3600 calories (~1lb of fat)

so unless your doing so, i wouldnt worry

It's more complex than calories in vs out; there are hormonally mediated metabolic effects that are caused by artificial sweeteners that contribute to obesity among other issues. Diet soda is bad for you. Shrug.

 

[JEDIYoda]

an average can of diet soda has about 4 calories? so you will need about 900 cans of diet soda to get about 3600 calories (~1lb of fat)

so unless your doing so, i wouldnt worry

more ignorance.....

 

[Florence Chloe]

 

[jagdishsingh]

Diet soda leads to weight gain is not true because I have seen videos of a couple of sportsmen having diet soda and few instagram models and influencers consuming diet soda often.