Health Impact Of Diet Soda - AnabolicMinds.com
    • Health Impact Of Diet Soda


      From ScienceDaily

      Are diet sodas good or bad for you? The jury is still out, but a new study sheds light on the impact that zero-calorie beverages may have on health, especially in the context of a person's overall dietary habits.

      For the average person, the scientific evidence can seem confusing. A number of studies have implicated diet beverage consumption as a cause of cardiovascular disease. However, others have suggested such drinks may be a viable tactic for people who are trying to lose or control their weight.

      Either way, most previous research has tended to focus either on people's drinking patterns and preferences, or their overall dietary habits -- in other words, most studies have failed to tease apart how those two aspects interact to affect people's health.

      To address this problem, a new study from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill examined not only people's beverage consumption patterns but also the diets of those who consume diet and sugar-sweetened beverages. The findings appear in the April issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
      Kiyah Duffey, Ph.D., study author and research assistant professor of nutrition at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, said that similar to previous studies, the new analysis found that people who consumed diet beverages tended to be less healthy than people who did not consume them.

      "However, there was an important interplay between overall diet and what people drink," Duffey said. "It is important that people consider the entirety of their diet before they consider switching to or adding diet beverages, because without doing so they may not realize the health benefits they were hoping to see."

      Researchers studied data collected over 20 years from more than 4,000 young adults who participated in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study.

      In terms of eating habits, participants fell into two groups: people who ate what researchers dubbed a "prudent" diet (one with more fruit, fish, whole grains, nuts and milk) and individuals who consumed a "western" diet (which had higher amounts of fast food, meat and poultry, pizza and snacks).

      People who were healthiest tended to be those who ate a prudent diet and did not consume diet beverages. They had a lower risk of high waist circumference, high triglyceride levels and metabolic syndrome (22 percent, 28 percent and 36 percent lower, respectively, than people who ate a western diet and did not drink diet beverages). But the second healthiest group was individuals with a prudent diet who also consumed diet beverages.

      In contrast, individuals who consumed the western diet had increased risk of heart disease, regardless of whether or not they drank diet beverages.

      The UNC researchers found that many dietary factors contributed to a person's overall health. Without taking diet beverage consumption into account, people who ate the prudent diet had significantly better cholesterol and triglyceride profiles and significantly lower risks of hypertension and metabolic syndrome than those who ate the western diet.

      Duffey added: "Our study confirms the recommendations of the American Diabetes Association and many weight-loss programs, which suggest people drink these beverages as a way to cut calories and lose or control weight, but only in the context of the whole diet."

      Other authors were Barry M. Popkin, Ph.D., W. R. Kenan Jr. Distinguished Professor of Nutrition at UNC and a member of the Carolina Population Center; Linda Van Horn, Ph.D., professor of preventive medicine at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine; and David R. Jacobs Jr., Ph.D., Mayo Professor of Public Health at the University of Minnesota's School of Public Health.

      Story Source:
      The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
      Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

      Journal Reference:
      Kiyah J Duffey, Lyn M Steffen, Linda Van Horn, David R Jacobs Jr, and Barry M Popkin. Dietary patterns matter: diet beverages and cardiometabolic risks in the longitudinal Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2012 DOI: 10.3945/%u200Bajcn.111.026682

      Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0328172257.htm
      Comments 24 Comments
      1. Flexappeal's Avatar
        Flexappeal -
        What a pointless study! How about we put people on the same exact diet, Mediterranean or any diet for that matter. Half drink regular drinks the other drink diet drinks. Then we will have the real outcome of how diet sodas effect people.
        Prudent diets turned out to be healthier than western ?? What a huge surprise!!
      1. JajaNe20's Avatar
        JajaNe20 -
        WHAT? No brainer here. wow
      1. The Storm16's Avatar
        The Storm16 -
        It sounds like this was meant to be a more general study on overall health risks. It seems like they recorded diet soda consumption but did not aim at testing what the actual impacts of diet soda are
      1. Swordfish II's Avatar
        Swordfish II -
        I think you guys are missing the point. They looked at people with prudent diets that did and did not drink diet soda. Basically they found little to no difference in blood work or anything else.

        They used the western diet as a control and saw the same thing.

        Their conclusion: Diet soda no/negligible effects. Metabolic impact is driven solely by diet.
      1. JajaNe20's Avatar
        JajaNe20 -
        didn't miss the point...still wow
      1. Flexappeal's Avatar
        Flexappeal -
        We do need some hardcore studies done with artificial sweeteners and diet sodas (on humans). I eat pretty much a no carb diet other than 40g around and during training. Diet soda and occasional Splenda are my vices, id really like to see some real facts.
      1. aceroni's Avatar
        aceroni -
        Well, whether you like it or not, sucralose is a sugar. Regardless of the fact that the "diet" can says 0g sugar, you're being lied to. The only difference is that your body must take ONE or two extra steps to convert sucralose into glucose so it can be used in the glycolysis pathway. Whether you believe it or not, sugar is sugar, and your body doesn't know the difference, it uses them all the same. The only difference is the "diet" sugars must first be converted into glucose. You're only fooling yourselves...
      1. Flexappeal's Avatar
        Flexappeal -
        So you are saying all these diet soda's, Splenda drinks, supplements like Xtend are all actually
        Loaded with actual sugar, carbs, and calories after the body converts them.
      1. aceroni's Avatar
        aceroni -
        Maybe not "loaded" as per se--
        I guess my post was a little misguided..

        What I meant to say is that regardless of what the sugar is called- it is still utilized in the body through glycolysis... IE what im saying is that the body simply converts the fake sugars to REAL glucose, then goes through glycolysis..

        My message being this:: diet sodas / diet whatever with sucralose still have sugar in them. Yes- I use products w/ sucralose.. Its pratically impossible to avoid it these days. But what im saying is that we as consumers should pay more attention to what we put in our bodies...

        All these new "diet" foods with reduced fat or reduced sugar or reduced whatever are usually just as bad as the original product- sometimes worse!

        EDIT:: And I agree 100% with you brother, that we need more testing on this sort of stuff. The FDA gets away with basically anything these days. . . And we, as the consumers, are the ones paying the price (the dmg done to our bodies).
      1. Swordfish II's Avatar
        Swordfish II -
        Originally Posted by aceroni View Post
        Well, whether you like it or not, sucralose is a sugar. Regardless of the fact that the "diet" can says 0g sugar, you're being lied to. The only difference is that your body must take ONE or two extra steps to convert sucralose into glucose so it can be used in the glycolysis pathway. Whether you believe it or not, sugar is sugar, and your body doesn't know the difference, it uses them all the same. The only difference is the "diet" sugars must first be converted into glucose. You're only fooling yourselves...
        I have seen studies that the artificial sweetners do not equal sugar, as they do not illicit and insulin response. I'll see if I can dig that up
      1. Swordfish II's Avatar
        Swordfish II -
        Originally Posted by aceroni View Post
        Maybe not "loaded" as per se--
        I guess my post was a little misguided..

        What I meant to say is that regardless of what the sugar is called- it is still utilized in the body through glycolysis... IE what im saying is that the body simply converts the fake sugars to REAL glucose, then goes through glycolysis..

        My message being this:: diet sodas / diet whatever with sucralose still have sugar in them. Yes- I use products w/ sucralose.. Its pratically impossible to avoid it these days. But what im saying is that we as consumers should pay more attention to what we put in our bodies...

        All these new "diet" foods with reduced fat or reduced sugar or reduced whatever are usually just as bad as the original product- sometimes worse!

        EDIT:: And I agree 100% with you brother, that we need more testing on this sort of stuff. The FDA gets away with basically anything these days. . . And we, as the consumers, are the ones paying the price (the dmg done to our bodies).
        FYI, here is a study specifically on sucralose in the Journal of Nutrition Research

        The study’s authors, from Iowa State University, gave eight normal-weight female volunteers one of three drinks – sucrose in water, sucralose in water, or both sucrose and sucralose in water and took blood samples at fasting, and 30 and 60 minutes after consumption. They were then given a standardized breakfast and blood samples were taken 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes after breakfast. Samples were tested for glucose, insulin, glucagon, triglycerides, and the hunger hormone acylated ghrelin.

        They found that consumption of the sucralose solution was similar to water alone in terms of hunger and the body’s response to glucose. “Sucralose showed no significant differences compared with water and was significantly different than sucrose,” they wrote. Our data imply that sucralose may be a relatively inert option when used to increase palatability or lower the energy density of foods."

        The authors chose to examine the body’s response to sucralose because it has a structure more similar to sucrose than any other artificial sweetener.

        Vol. 31, Iss. 12, December 2011, pp. 882-888

        “Short-term consumption of sucralose, a nonnutritive sweetener, is similar to water with regard to select markers of hunger signaling and short-term glucose homeostasis in women”
        Authors: Andrew W. Brown, Michelle M. Bohan Brown, Kristine L. Onken, Donald C. Beitz
      1. Flexappeal's Avatar
        Flexappeal -
        Nice article !
      1. aceroni's Avatar
        aceroni -
        swordfish- good post man.. i like that you have scientific evidence backing you up.
      1. dsm2evo's Avatar
        dsm2evo -
        Diet drinks use aspartame which is worst than sugar drinks and makes your bone density weak and lost of calcium too.
      1. bmattstevens's Avatar
        bmattstevens -
        Why not just cut all soda out? You really think all that acid is good for your teeth or stomach?... This coming from someone who at one time drank a 12 pack of come every 2-3 days. Now I may have a fountain drink one(diet) or twice a month. I don't have room to fit soda in my diet, start by drinking at least 1 gallon of water a day. You would be surprised how much good that would do you. (your liver will thank you)
      1. aceroni's Avatar
        aceroni -
        ^ ya man i dont drink pop / soda at all.. i was just arguing my point.
      1. Swordfish II's Avatar
        Swordfish II -
        Originally Posted by dsm2evo View Post
        Diet drinks use aspartame which is worst than sugar drinks and makes your bone density weak and lost of calcium too.
        I assume you are referencing this study?
        Nguyen UM, Dumouline G, Henriet M-T, Reginard J. 1998 Aspartame ingestion increases urinary calcium, but not oxylate exertion, in healthy subjects. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 83:163–168.

        There was a follow up done by Aurther M. Leon M.D. At the very same Lab. His findings and statement is as follows in the Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism.

        "I wish to reassure the readers that a longer-term study in our laboratory failed to reveal excess urinary calcium excretion associated with long-term, much larger doses of aspartame (2). In our study, 108 healthy men and women, age 18–62 yr, received either aspartame 75 mg per kg of body weight per day in capsules, 3 times a day, or placebo for a 6-month period. An 18-factor battery of blood chemistries was analyzed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 weeks, and 24-h urine specimens were analyzed for calcium and creatinine at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 weeks. No significant differences from baseline levels within or between study group were noted in blood chemistries, including calcium and phosphorus levels. Furthermore there was no change from baseline in urinary calcium excretion either expressed in milligrams per 24 h or by a 24-h calcium to creatinine ratio within or between the aspartame and placebo groups. The results of this study document the safety of chronic consumption of aspartame, including no effect on calcium homeostasis, at doses approximately 25 times the average daily consumption for Americans (3),equivalent to the amount of aspartame in approximately 10 liters per day of beverage."

        As always, I will happily provide sources via PM since I cannot post links yet.
      1. Swordfish II's Avatar
        Swordfish II -
        Originally Posted by aceroni View Post
        swordfish- good post man.. i like that you have scientific evidence backing you up.
        Thanks, I always try and base my stances/posts on scientific reasoning. Far to often I see people put information out there without any knowledge of if or why it is correct.

        Un-timed insulin response in someone attempting to maximize their physical/physique potential is detrimental to their end goal. Yet we all like sweet things. Sugar substitutes really do not have many proven health issues, and do not illicit an insulin response (hell aspartame is probably the most tested and studied food additive ever approved by the FDA, and the European Food Safety Authority).

        My stance on any of the sugar substitutes is this: Might as well use the tools you have, as with anything though; don't abuse them.
      1. dsm2evo's Avatar
        dsm2evo -
        I think that's the article my wife studies all this things and I just listen lol. But the best thing to do is avoid caloric drinks at all specially soda.
      1. Swordfish II's Avatar
        Swordfish II -
        Originally Posted by dsm2evo View Post
        I think that's the article my wife studies all this things and I just listen lol. But the best thing to do is avoid caloric drinks at all specially soda.

        I agree... with the exception of PreWO and PWO. I don't subscribe to IntraWO, but if you do it would be beneficial as well.

        I am a bit confused about your statement above though. Diet drinks are usually 0 calorie or extremely low calorie (ie less than 15). Hence the reason you would drink them and imbibe aspartame, sucralose, etc as opposed to their higher calorie (~120 per can/bottle) sugar equivalent.

        Log in

        Log in

        Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.