Article: Health Impact Of Diet Soda
- Thread starter The Press
- Start date
Flexappeal
Member
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!!
Prudent diets turned out to be healthier than western ?? What a huge surprise!!
The Storm16
New member
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
Swordfish II
New member
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.
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.
Flexappeal
Member
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.
aceroni
Well-known member
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...
Flexappeal
Member
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.
Loaded with actual sugar, carbs, and calories after the body converts them.
aceroni
Well-known member
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).
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).
Swordfish II
New member
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
Swordfish II
New member
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
Flexappeal
Member
Nice article !
bmattstevens
Member
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)
Swordfish II
New member
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.
Swordfish II
New member
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.
Swordfish II
New member
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.
Swordfish II
New member
Ah ok. Well you are certainly welcome to your view.
As for me, my diet is dialed in to the nth degree (and calorie) and targeted to manipulate insulin. So when I get the craving for something sweet, I will pop the top on a Coke Zero every now and then, or hit up a Vita Water Zero, *shrug*