69 replies to this topic

[ajnast4r]

ide like to think no one here actually drinks diet soda lol... but i thought this was pretty interesting


Overweight Risk Soars 41% With Each Daily Can of Diet Soft Drink

http://my.webmd.com/...0000_5022_pe_03

[johnmk]

I really don't see the use of such a study. I don't think diet soda = weight gain. It's just correlated with higher weight. Huge difference there.

[lemon]

Why would anyone on the life extention forum drink diet soda?

(shudder)

[:o]

[xanadu]

I think the reason it causes weight gain is because it produces food cravings. Sugar itself produces cravings as do certain other refined hydrocarbates. It does not surprise me at all that sugar substitutes would do the same thing. You save a few calories by drinking diet soda but then you eat twice as much extra food because of the cravings it induces. Then there is the factor of the harm the artificial sweeteners does to your health.

[ajnast4r]

Why would anyone on the life extention forum drink diet soda?

(shudder)

[:o]

well ive heard people saying they use splenda, microwave their food, and use grocery store supplements... so... [wis]

[lemon]

Splenda is a chemical cousin of DDT. Stay far far away.

"microwave their food". I don't even own a micowave and have no plans of buying one.

Grocery store supplements? These are non-economical as compared to buying on-line.

(were you making a joke? Because I'm serious)

[mellow]

[ajnast4r]

i agree with you, and im not joking... those are things ive heard mentioned on this forum as being acceptable.

[wannafulfill]

is the objection to diet soda mostly because of the aspartame? what else makes it so evil?

[ajnast4r]

is the objection to diet soda mostly because of the aspartame?  what else makes it so evil?

the aspartame mainly

secondly... my understanding is that the high acidity of most sodas, would leach aluminum from the can into the liquid

thirdly.. a host of different chemical flavors and preservitives

[DukeNukem]

Diet soda is worse than regular soda, from a pure health perspective, because aspartame is toxic. The aspartame molecule is the combination of three poisonous molecules that break apart when digested. I can't remember what the three poisons are, except I remember one is wood alcohol. If anyone wants the gory details on aspartame, I highly recommend the DVD, Sweet Misery (easily Googled). Truly eye-opening stuff.

Diet soda also sends the body signals of receiving sweet food, but because there are no carbs to process it ends up backfiring and causing more bodily harm than had the carbs been there in the drink. And this is what causes worse weight gain than just drinking regular soda. Again, I do not know that details of how this works, but I've read this from many sources.

All sodas (diet or otherwise) contain phosphoric acid, which leeches calcium from bones, weakening them over the years. All sodas also contain a list of artificial chemicals and preservatives.

Bottom-line: All soda types (diet included) are among the worst 3-5 foods you can possibly consume, and are extremely pro-aging.

In fact, sodas are right there with cigarettes as one of the worse products to introduce into your system. And yet parents happily gets their kids onto the soda habit before their first year of age, weakening the development of the child's teeth and bones, stressing out the child's insulin system, and introducing their kids to who-knows-what kind of mixed lab of detrimental chemicals. Might as well stick a cigarette in their mouth, too.

[darauch]

Is there empirical evidence that microwaving is harmful?

[DJS]

Diet soda is worse than regular soda, from a pure health perspective, because aspartame is toxic. The aspartame molecule is the combination of three poisonous molecules that break apart when digested. I can't remember what the three poisons are, except I remember one is wood alcohol. If anyone wants the gory details on aspartame, I highly recommend the DVD, Sweet Misery (easily Googled). Truly eye-opening stuff.

Scott I'm curious what your take is on "light juices". I often buy cran-ras light in the store. I believe that the process used to produce this type of juice is concentrating, followed by the extraction of most of the sugar, followed with the substitution of splenda.

My logic as of late has been that this is a good thing because (1) juice is healthy (2) you're cutting down on your total sugars. Am I wrong on this one? Generally I try to avoid sugar at all cost.

[Shepard]

I use buckwheat honey whenever I need something sweetened. I tried using stevia, but I couldn't handle it. There was an interesting study posted over at Avant about honey, actually.

http://forum.avantla...showtopic=18472

[wannafulfill]

I am curious, just what about stevia gave you problems shepard?

[Shepard]

I just couldn't stand the taste of it.

[ajnast4r]

I just couldn't stand the taste of it.

did you try different brands? did you try powder or liquid? those factors all make a big difference in taste

btw i LOVE this honey...its good for you too

[Shepard]

I tried NOW powder. I've also tried a tincture that my uncle sells (he owns a health club/gym/supplement store). Neither one of them suited me.

[vastman]

Stevia plants are easy to grow and the leaves are quite tasty if needed to sweeten a smoothy or something that they can be blended in. Don't know about the rest of the world, but in the bay area, CA you can buy stevia anywhere they sell herb plants... i.e., at all the little nurseries and garden centers. Personally, I don't use it much anymore as AOR's essentials mix is already a bit too sweet for my tastes...

[DukeNukem]

Scott I'm curious what your take is on "light juices". I often buy cran-ras light in the store.

Well, what are they putting in it to make it sweet? If it's aspartame of splenda, run away! Both are unhealthy. Saccharine is the only artificial sweetener that's relatively safe to use, as there's never been a problem attributed to its normal usage in the 100+ years it's been around. Stevia is natural sweetener, and by far the best choice (in fact, it has health benefits), but many people cannot grow to like it. When I'm at a restaurant, I'll put half a packet only of Sweet-n-Low in my tea.

[xanadu]

There is a little sugar in nearly all natural foods. This is usually not a problem. It becomes a problem when you consume refined sugar. Sugar gives you food cravings. The ads say eat a candy bar if you are hungry. Have you ever been hungry, ate a candy bar, and then not been hungry? No, it never happens. Eating the candy bar makes you hungrier.

Where is the proof microwaving causes any problems? I gave a response in the microwave thread and no one wanted to comment further but it seems to be accepted on faith that microwaving is harmful to the health in some way.

[DukeNukem]

I have read about microwaving being unhealthy in several books, but it would take some work to find out which ones -- I've read over 200 health/longevity/nutrition books in the last few years. ;-)

The key thing is that it damages protein, and you do not want to consume damaged protein. Another problem is that if you cook in a plastic container, it will leech into the food in a microwave oven. It also destroys phytochemicals.

I never use one, and I've not been inconvenienced in the least.

[wannafulfill]

I love stevia. I'm looking for more options for beverages. I can only drink so much water and tea... suggestions?

[xanadu]

duke wrote:

>The key thing is that it damages protein, and you do not want to consume damaged protein.

Doesn't heat damage protiens? And why don't you want to consume damaged protiens?

>Another problem is that if you cook in a plastic container, it will leech into the food in a microwave oven. It also destroys phytochemicals.

I believe you are right about that.

[wannafulfill]

about diet soda and aspartame, I'd like to keep the discussion alive. Dukenukem, would you respond to this article:

http://www.avantlabs...=376&issueID=31

Thank-you!

Edited by wannafulfill, 18 August 2005 - 06:43 PM.

[FunkOdyssey]

New, well constructed studies continue to come out proving that aspartame causes cancer. I will leave it to others to explore the question of why tomato juice is not carcinogenic despite its higher level of methanol than diet soda.

Have a look at this recent study:

aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats, full plain text, M Soffritti, F Belpoggi, DD Esposti, L Lambertini: Ramazzini Foundation study 2005.07.14: main results agree with their previous methanol and formaldehyde studies: Murray 2005.07.26

[DukeNukem]

Wannafulfill, that article says what I've been saying all along: aspartame is poison, and saccharine is the far safer choice if you MUST use an artificial sweetener. Tab, as a soda, is much healthier than Diet Coke, for example (relatively speaking, as Tab is still unhealthy overall).

Stevia is the best natural sweetener, but many cannot handle the taste.

Sucralose (a.k.a. Splenda) is also unhealthy, and there's plenty of research supporting this. It's amazing to me how many clueless CRer's seem to think sucralose is their sweet savior.

[DJS]

It's amazing to me how many clueless CRer's seem to think sucralose is their sweet savior.

I was led to this conclusion too Duke. Which is why when you recommended saccharine (if one needs sweetner) I was really surprised. Most of the optimal health people I have talked to have been very gungho about splenda.

Its frustrating because one tries to be somewhat healthy, but when it comes to sweetners there is no conclusive verdict on the matter.

[xanadu]

Why does anyone need sweeteners? What's wrong with a little spice or just eat it the way it is? I think we have become spoiled on what things should taste like.

[DukeNukem]

Its frustrating because one tries to be somewhat healthy, but when it comes to sweeteners there is no conclusive verdict on the matter.

Don, saccharine has been around for 100+ years, and there are NO reported illnesses associated with it. That's fairly conclusive evidence in favor of its safety. Sucralose and aspartame have been around for much shorter periods, and already have scary safety records. Both were approved by the FDA in a way that leaves one scratching their head, much like half of the pharmaceutical drugs that the FDA approves nowadays, and soon after get recalled. For some reason, aspartame nor sucralose have been recalled, yet. Follow the money.

Since Monsanto owns Sweet N Low and Nutrasweet, it was in their best interest to have saccharine shown as dangerous in the 70's in that famous mouse study that used ridiculously high mega-doses of saccharine. (And gee, it caused cancer...imagine that!) You see, the patent on saccharine had run out decades ago, and with Nutrasweet (aspartame) coming out (with a shiny 17 year patent), it would only help if saccharine lost favor -- thus pushing business toward an alternate sweetener in which Monsanto controlled 100% (where as with saccharine any could make it after the patent expired).

Again, compare safety records. That's your answer. And saccharine wins without a fight.