Diet Sodas & Health
From the time I first tasted artificial sweetener I knew that they are not good for you. It tastes like nothing natural on earth – like it is manufactured from some chemical waste dump.
What really amazed me is how many people used them and seemed to actually like them. The only explanation I can think of is you acquire a taste after you use them for a while. As for me this was not something I want to acquire a taste for but even so a couple times a year I may drink something with artificial sweeteners as it is in so many things that it is difficult to avoid completely.
It is difficult to tell what has artificial sweeteners from the label as there are so many variations of them with numerous names. I read that they are sometimes added to natural sweeteners and not listed in the ingredients. Sometimes the only way you can tell is from the taste.
Below are the results of several studies showing some of the disadvantages. It is interesting that people use them to save calories, but those who drink diet sodas gain more weight than those who use regular sugar drinks.
I think the problems they cause are much greater than revealed by any study so far. Michael J. Fox was famous for endorsing Diet Pepsi and look at the poor guy now. I wouldn’t be surprised if the diet drinks weren’t largely responsible for his condition.
Anyway – here’s some thought provoking data.
The Studies
People who drink diet soft drinks don’t lose weight. In fact, they gain weight, a new study shows.
The findings come from eight years of data collected by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio. Fowler reported the data at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego.
“What didn’t surprise us was that total soft drink use was linked to overweight and obesity,” Fowler tells WebMD. “What was surprising was when we looked at people only drinking diet soft drinks, their risk of obesity was even higher.”
In fact, when the researchers took a closer look at their data, they found that nearly all the obesity risk from soft drinks came from diet sodas.
“There was a 41% increase in risk of being overweight for every can or bottle of diet soft drink a person consumes each day,” Fowler says. More Diet Drinks, More Weight Gain
Fowler’s team looked at seven to eight years of data on 1,550 Mexican-American and non-Hispanic white Americans aged 25 to 64. Of the 622 study participants who were of normal weight at the beginning of the study, about a third became overweight or obese.
For regular soft-drink drinkers, the risk of becoming overweight or obese was:
26% for up to 1/2 can each day 30.4% for 1/2 to one can each day 32.8% for 1 to 2 cans each day 47.2% for more than 2 cans each day.
For diet soft-drink drinkers, the risk of becoming overweight or obese was:
36.5% for up to 1/2 can each day 37.5% for 1/2 to one can each day 54.5% for 1 to 2 cans each day 57.1% for more than 2 cans each day.
For each can of diet soft drink consumed each day, a person’s risk of obesity went up 41%
New research that links diet soda consumption with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke has doctors urging caution about the controversial and preliminary results. According to a study of more than 2,500 people presented today as a poster at the American Stroke Association International Stroke Conference in Los Angeles, people who drank diet soda daily had a 61 percent increased risk of cardiovascular events compared to those who drank no soda, even when accounting for smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption and calories consumed per day. “This study suggests that diet soda is not an optimal substitute for sugar-sweetened beverages, and may be associated with a greater risk of stroke,” Hannah Gardener of the University of Miami and her colleagues reported at the conference.
Watch your kidneys, folks.
Researchers analyzing the health habits of thousands of nurses found that women who drank two or more diet sodas daily had a two-fold increase in the risk of a significantly faster drop in their kidneys’ ability to filter blood compared with those who drank one or none.
Another analysis by the same pair of Harvard researchers found that eating a lot of salt also hurt kidney’s filtering power over time.
“While more study is needed, our research suggests that higher sodium and artificially sweetened beverages are associated with a greater rate of decline in kidney function,” Dr. Julie Lin, a kidney specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in a statement.
The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. – Albert Einstein
July 11, 2011
Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE
Easy Access to All the Writings
For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE
1. It’s called paraphrasing. The very first paragraph you wrote is exactly how I paraphrased it. Describing what you read in your own words and distilling things down to their logical conclusions are valuable ways for comprehending what you’re reading. It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t like the idea of anyone doing that. You want everyone to take your words only at face value, because if they look any deeper and actually comprehend what’s being said, they’d realize how full of shit you are.
2. That’s a problem. A study about artificial sweeteners that doesn’t specify which one can hardly be taken seriously. There’s so many of them, natural and unnatural, that it tells nothing.
3. You like to jump the gun and make implications based on flimsy evidence all the time. This is just one example of many. You wouldn’t be surprised by what you’ve concluded to be true, because it’s your conclusion and you’re looking for it to be true.
4. You brought up the study and it didn’t occur to you to criticize it on this point. You just want me off your back.
5. You’re the one presenting this. You’re the one who is supposed to look, if you claim to have an ounce of common sense at all that is. Why didn’t you bother looking? Because you didn’t want to. Heaven forbid you look at anything that contradicts what the great JJ Dewey has decided is true.
If you did not see yourself as an authority figure about the things you write, then why bother writing about any of the things you write about at all? Is your whole soul contact course a total made-up pile of gibberish? It must be because, according to you, you’re not an authority figure on it. On that, we agree. You are no authority figure on anything you write.
What I see is a failure who has nothing of value to offer the world, trying to manufacture a false sense of worth based on the quantity of rambling he can do. What I see is a guy in his 80s who hasn’t matured past 8, who clings to delusions of grandeur about maybe one day being recognized for some greatness that will never come and which he never had. I don’t need to criticize you to feel superior. I am superior to you: intellectually, in personality, in character, and spiritually.
Everything I have said here is true according to my soul.
Paraphrasing is an extremely weak excuse for distorting what I say and think.
Like most people I see myself as the world’s greatest authority on my own thinking, but I have never presented myself as an authority that should be accepted because of some established authoritative system. I have stressed that each should follow their common sense and inner authority and if what I say agrees with this, then accept it. If not then do not accept. Obviously you are one of those who do not accept.
I haven’t distorted anything you’re saying. If I have, you’re welcome to tell me exactly why I’m wrong. You won’t though. You’ll play the fool before you ever take a hard honest look at yourself and the slop you write, just like you’re doing now.
For a guy who is emphatic about the existence of objective truth and grand divine narratives, you’re awfully resistant to defend your claims beyond leaving it up to personal subjective feelings. We both agree that you are an authority on what you think, but as far as the truth is concerned, that means nothing if you live in a world of complete fiction.
This article reveals many problems with the way you reason things.
1. Starting with “It tastes bad therefore it’s bad for you” isn’t a good jumping-off point for research. Based on that, living off triple-bacon-cheeseburgers is a good idea.
2. There’s not a single any remark about any specific artificial sweetener, but just artificial sweeteners in general, as if they’re all the same.
3. Michael J. Fox has Parkinson’s disease. That might have something to do with his health.
4. Overlooking that obese people might be more likely to be drinking diet sodas. Non-obese people aren’t going to be inclined to.
5. You didn’t present any contradictory evidence. You only presented findings that support what you already decided was true based on your taste.
Here is what I don’t get JJ. You present yourself as someone who is an intelligent source of wisdom and an authority on common sense. (Don’t say you don’t. When you bark about it as much as you do, your claim of being an authority figure is implicit.) Yet, here you are, negating some very basic logical deductions and critical thinking skills. How do you resolve this?
1. You start off with a quote that I did not say and do not believe and ridicule me for it. That is very deceptive. Argue with what I do say, not with what I do not say. I believe there are numerous things that are good for you that taste bad – like straight garlic, but your taste can also give you a warning that something is spoiled or bad for you.
2. The study did not specify which kind of artificial sweeteners were involved. I would assume they just differentiated between natural and artificial.
3. Nothing wrong with my Michael J. Fox comment. I did specifically say the artificial sweeteners were responsible for for his condition, but that “I wouldn’t be surprised” if they had an effect. And if that were revealed to be true I wouldn’t be surprised. Duh…
4. You say: “Overlooking that obese people might be more likely to be drinking diet sodas.” That’s may be true but you need to argue with the people who made the studies noted. No study includes all side possibilities and influences. Including the overweight effect wouldn’t have altered the conclusion by much.
5. You say: “You didn’t present any contradictory evidence.” Do not know of any contradictory evidence. Do you? If I can’t find any I can’t include it.
You end by saying I have a “claim of being an authority figure.” Again you argue with what I do not say. You caanot find any such claim in any of my writings.
What I see here is a critic trying to feel superior by nit picking on details and fabricating false statements and beliefs attributed to me.