Sprite/Coke Zero how bad is it?

[redgrail]

Originally Posted by maacone

The cancer link was debunked.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12155793/

Firstly: anyone with any background in science can tell you self-reporting survey-based studies are no replacement for lab testing.
Secondly: the NCI study was over a twelve month period. The Ramazzini study which tested sweetener consumption in lab animals (rats, specifically) was over a life span. The deleterious effects of long-term ingestion have not been disproven.
Debunked is a strong word to use, especially in the natural sciences. No statistical link was shown in a large survey-based study that tracked consumption over a twelve month period in humans. This is true. However, because of the results of the Ramazzini study, I would still advise exercising caution.

I know this is a jungle of research and must be hard to navigate. But anything that's caused this much controversy is likely something you want to limit your consumption of.

 

[east hastings]

Originally Posted by redgrail

It depends on which sweetener. You're talking about. Zero products contain both aspartame and acesulfame-k (aka acesulfame-potassium). The ace-k has a bitter taste in addition to the sweetness (that you don't notice because of the other ingredients) and it will affect the secretion of insulin. Aspartame will not. However, it is rare that a diet soda product contains ONLY non-bitter sweeteners (I haven't seen one, but I guess they might exist). Your blood sugar won't go up - but the body is "tricked" into releasing insulin into the bloodstream nonetheless.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9...?dopt=Abstract
is a study on this phenomenon. I'm not sure, but you might have to pay or be associated with a university to see the full study, however.

Still, this is probably the least of your worries since aspartame and ace-k are both believed to have induced relatively large brain tumors in lab animals...

Ah, thanks for this. Interesting stuff.

 

[maacone]

Originally Posted by redgrail

Firstly: anyone with any background in science can tell you self-reporting survey-based studies are no replacement for lab testing.
Secondly: the NCI study was over a twelve month period. The Ramazzini study which tested sweetener consumption in lab animals (rats, specifically) was over a life span. The deleterious effects of long-term ingestion have not been disproven.
Debunked is a strong word to use, especially in the natural sciences. No statistical link was shown in a large survey-based study that tracked consumption over a twelve month period in humans. This is true. However, because of the results of the Ramazzini study, I would still advise exercising caution.

I know this is a jungle of research and must be hard to navigate. But anything that's caused this much controversy is likely something you want to limit your consumption of.

Agreed, I'll definitely be dumping diet drinks based on their effect on insulin secretion. And you are right, I shouldn't have said "debunked".

There has been a fair amount of controversy over the Ramazzini study though. Unless independent groups corroborate their results, you can't really depend on them particularly given the criticisms of their methodology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asparta...ini_Foundation

In August 2007, the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) published a press release commenting upon the Italian study:
" \t... These studies were conducted in a way that could not possibly have provided any information about the toxicity of aspartame - or in fact anything else in the rats' diet. The animals used were allowed to live until they died naturally, meaning that all the study did was show the results of ageing, which as we all know is a natural process that leads, inevitably, to death.

In fact, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the results is that aspartame appears to be safe because the studies showed that those rats fed it (even at very high doses) lived as long (if not longer) as untreated rats, despite consuming up to more than 100 times the ADI every day of their lives. If aspartame was as horrendously toxic as is being claimed, it would be logical to expect the rats dosed with it to have shortened life-spans. The conclusions drawn by the researchers were clearly not backed up by their own data.[72]

 

[SamIam33]

Originally Posted by tiecollector

Drink them in moderation. I try to drink sodas with cane sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup (hfcs) but I'm drinking a pepsi right now. What I do is pour half the can out and then drink the rest. I drink a half a soda every 2 or 3 days just so I don't go crazy and I love the taste. I used to drink a 6 pack a day pretty much.

Regulating your insulin is the key to staying young. Advanced Glycation Endproducts (AGE) really messes you up.

I haven't really studied aspartame and the like because I hate the taste so I never drink it. Any of that artificial stuff can't be good for you to do in large quantities regularly though. If you want one every once in a while, don't worry about it.

Remember with all these artificial things that they tell you are safe... after several years there is almost always something found wrong with them. Trans fats, aspartame, hfcs, you name it....

More aspartame articles
http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/index.htm

Yeah, I agree with drinking them in moderation-- that's my philosophy about a lot of foods/drinks. I don't avoid HFCS or aspartame completely, I just try not to consume them a lot. I'm also trying to add more fruits/veggies to my diet.

 

[blank]

There is nothing on Earth like an ice cold fountain Coke.

Not a false statement.

 

[ken]

Originally Posted by j

Even so, with the amount of ethanol I tend to ingest, I don't think a few mg of aspartame is really my biggest worry.

I'm a lead man, myself, soldering all day w/ Pb-solder. Put some maraschino in it and you've got yourself happy hour.

I don't think I've ever had the chance to try a Coke w/real sugar (instead of hfcs). Anybody know if they're available anywhere?

 

[kwilkinson]

Originally Posted by ericajones80

I've been drinking diet for such a long time, I forget what regular soda tastes like. No calories = no problem

Don't try a regular anytime soon. You'll honestly puke at how sweet it is.

 

[SamIam33]

Originally Posted by ken

I'm a lead man, myself, soldering all day w/ Pb-solder. Put some maraschino in it and you've got yourself happy hour.

I don't think I've ever had the chance to try a Coke w/real sugar (instead of hfcs). Anybody know if they're available anywhere?

I think they have them abroad, but honestly there's not a big difference between the two.

 

[zshaver]

I'm not sure if it's just the mental aspect of it, but whenever I have a coke with real sugar in the glass bottle, it always tastes a million times better. As for diet drinks, I have to admit that I prefer Coke C2. It pretty much tastes the same with half the sugar, although I don't remember if it has aspartame in it or not, you can't buy it in France.

 

[SantosLHalper]

Originally Posted by ken

I'm a lead man, myself, soldering all day w/ Pb-solder. Put some maraschino in it and you've got yourself happy hour.

I don't think I've ever had the chance to try a Coke w/real sugar (instead of hfcs). Anybody know if they're available anywhere?

I think it's still made in Mexico with real cane sugar. You can probably google it and buy it online from a US-based vendor or try your local mexican market. It's good.

 

[greg_atlanta]

from today's NY Times:

The Claim: Too Much Cola Can Cause Kidney Problems
By ANAHAD O'CONNOR

THE FACTS

It is well known that too much soda can increase the risk of diabetes and obesity. But when it comes to kidney problems, is there a difference between colas and other kinds of soda?

Colas contain high levels of phosphoric acid, which has been linked to kidney stones and other renal problems.

Much of this conclusion stems from anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. So last year, a team of scientists at the National Institutes of Health took a closer look.

In a study published in the journal Epidemiology, the team compared the dietary habits of 465 people with chronic kidney disease and 467 healthy people. After controlling for various factors, the team found that drinking two or more colas a day "” whether artificially sweetened or regular "” was linked to a twofold risk of chronic kidney disease.

But drinking two or more noncola carbonated drinks a day, they found, did not increase the risk.

The authors of the study say more research is needed, but their findings support the long-held notion that something about cola "” the phosphoric acid, for example, or the ability of cola to pull calcium from bones "” seems to increase the risk of kidney stones, renal failure and other conditions affecting the kidneys.

THE BOTTOM LINE

There is good evidence that cola beverages can increase the risk of kidney problems, more so than noncola sodas.