Current Events > Is it true diet soda is worse for you than regular.

(+) Yeah! (+)

It tastes like ass so I wouldnt be surprised.

I've heard aspertame can be harmful in large doses.
---

IIRC diet soda is one of the few things in the world that has zero nutritional value.
---

Worse in what way

---

It's fine with mentos
---

@DarkRoast

We need your medical knowledge on this issue.
---

No.brestugo posted...

I've heard aspertame can be harmful in large doses.

Large meaning impossible for a human to consume, maybe. Otherwise no.
---

Depends which article you read.
---

No.
---

Only when you figure out they rolled it for you when they knew you meant to get regular soda
---

Yep it's a scam to get people counting calories to buy soda.

Easy way to look at it is that all soda is fundamentally bad for you. I think what makes diet soda stand out is some possible links to definite cancer causing agents iirc. But regular soda is still total trash for your body.
---

No

The doctor I've been seeing for over 3 years said everything you read online about the fears of diet soda is absolute BS. I think I'd trust someone with over a dozen pieces of certification on his wall over some "study", random article, or heresy.
---

It depends on the kind of artificial sweetener. Aspartame is cancerous and not good at all. Sucralose and aceulfame potassium are decent, don't affect you on the glycemic index, but shouldn't be consumed in large amounts. Stevia, erythritol and xylitol are fantastic, they taste just like sugar (especially xylitol), pass through your body with no impact (although too much erythritol can cause GI issues) and they do not affect you at all on the glycemic index.

Regular soda has no nutritional value, and usually made with HFCS, which is a huge cause of chronically high insulin, which causes a host of other health problems like heart disease, obesity, diabetes, alzheimer's, dementia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, etc.

Diet soda has no nutritional value as well, and the artificial sweeteners can do more harm than good over prolonged time, because your body expects calories when you eat something that tastes sweet. It's not a good thing to have at all if your goal is weight loss, because you're fooling your body at the metabolic level, and it'll slow your metabolism.
---

@Xenozoa425 Youre full of shit. Kthx
---

I stopped drinking water because it has no nutritional value at all

The "science" behind diet soda being bad for you is just correlating it with obesity, without establishing causation.

Meaning a study might find that some people who drink diet soda will eat more than they usually would because they know they're reducing the calories they get from drinking. Then you get clickbait articles claiming diet soda is linked to obesity.

It's absolutely better for you to replace sugary drinks with no-calorie sweeteners.
---

RebelElite791 posted...

@Xenozoa425 Youre full of shit. Kthx

That all you got?

I mean, it's not rocket science that soda is one of the worst things you can put into your body.
---

Xenozoa425 posted...

I mean, it's not rocket science that soda is one of the worst things you can put into your body.

because of the sugar, yeah
---

BadderHare posted...

The "science" behind diet soda being bad for you is just correlating it with obesity, without establishing causation.

I'm constantly surprised by what passes for "studies" in medical journals that look at nothing but raw correlations, then some stupid media outlet puts out a headline like "studies show that diet soda is associated with overeating". Technically accurate but fucking misleading coz most of the population doesn't use the word "association" the way a statistician would
---

Not just the sugar. The chemicals too, like caramel color and brominated vegetable oil, are carcinogenic if consumed over long periods of time.

You're far better off getting a flavored carbonated seltzer water, or having a machine that lets you add your own flavor and artificial sweetener of choice, like lemon lime and stevia.
---

konokonohamaru posted...

I'm constantly surprised by what passes for "studies" in medical journals that look at nothing but raw correlations, then some stupid media outlet puts out a headline like "studies show that diet soda is associated with overeating". Technically accurate but fucking misleading coz most of the population doesn't use the word "association" the way a statistician would

Most studies are basically non-peer reviewed bunk pieces that work backwards from a conclusion, as opposed to studying why an end result is gained.

---

The aspartame leads to cancer thing was debunked years ago. It was based on a single Japanese study using insane amounts and no one has been able to replicate that since. That was in the 90s. It's largely thought to be made up data at this point.

Recently diet soda has been linked to an increased likelihood of alzheimers. Those studies seem pretty credible. Still you're boosting your likelihood from like 1% to 1.5%. It's like a 50% increase but it's still pretty low.
---

Xenozoa425 posted...

It depends on the kind of artificial sweetener. Aspartame is cancerous and not good at all. Sucralose and aceulfame potassium are decent, don't affect you on the glycemic index, but shouldn't be consumed in large amounts. Stevia, erythritol and xylitol are fantastic, they taste just like sugar (especially xylitol), pass through your body with no impact (although too much erythritol can cause GI issues) and they do not affect you at all on the glycemic index.

Regular soda has no nutritional value, and usually made with HFCS, which is a huge cause of chronically high insulin, which causes a host of other health problems like heart disease, obesity, diabetes, alzheimer's, dementia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, etc.

Diet soda has no nutritional value as well, and the artificial sweeteners can do more harm than good over prolonged time, because your body expects calories when you eat something that tastes sweet. It's not a good thing to have at all if your goal is weight loss, because you're fooling your body at the metabolic level, and it'll slow your metabolism.

How much aspartame is bad for you? My dad worked for Wrigley's since before I was born and only quit a few years ago. So for around 25 years of my life I've been chewing their gum a LOT lol. I mean since his car was full of free gum I would be chewing all day at school, at home, etc. Basically whenever I wasn't eating, bathing, or sleeping.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CONA2PNi8E" data-time="
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

@DarkRoast

We need your medical knowledge on this issue.

Honestly it's pretty hard to argue that sugarless is worse for you, considering what diabetes can do to you

---

While I have sincere doubts that diet soda is healthy or even nutritionally neutral, no it absolutely is not worse for you than regular soda. With how much sugar is in those drinks, I imagine America's obesity problem would be halved overnight if we didn't have soda.
---

No. the only studies that show that fake sugar is bad are funded by, guess who?

the sugar companies!
---

I've noticed my stomach handles a regular soda better most of the time, but that could just be my stomach.
---

All I know is that I get a headache every time I drink something containing aspartame. Why? I dont know, but it happens everytime.

Sugary drinks give me the shits
---

I bought some fucking DIET MOUNTAIN DEW by accident several days ago because I DIDN'T FUCKING READ THE LABELS PROPERLY!! >:D

On 2nd thoughts, that emoticon looks ambiguous but I like that
---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

The aspartame leads to cancer thing was debunked years ago. It was based on a single Japanese study using insane amounts and no one has been able to replicate that since. That was in the 90s. It's largely thought to be made up data at this point.

Recently diet soda has been linked to an increased likelihood of alzheimers. Those studies seem pretty credible. Still you're boosting your likelihood from like 1% to 1.5%. It's like a 50% increase but it's still pretty low.

It's the equivalent of 40 cans of soda a day (avg human adult weight) to reach the levels of aspartame that caused cancer in mice.

---

Again, it's not just the aspartame causing the cancer or diabetes. It's the chemicals and additives. Take Splenda for example, it has mostly maltodextrin. Maltodextrin is a sugar made from starches. They put sugar in a sugar-free substitute. And it is extremely glycemic, and raises insulin levels very high when consumed. Splenda is much worse than regular sugar, drinking it in sodas chronically will put you into metabolic syndrome and eventually diabetes much more easily than regular soda.
---

Bluharvest posted...

Sugary drinks give me the shits

Because indigestible sugars are laxatives.

---

My gut tells me that regardless of what crap is in diet soda, you need to be fearful of sugar and obesity as much if not more.
---

diet sodas aren't good for you but they are much less harmful than most sugary sodas which in a single can can blow past recommended sugar outputs for the day.
---

coolboy11 posted...

diet sodas aren't good for you but they are much less harmful than most sugary sodas which in a single can can blow past recommended sugar outputs for the day.

In the short term, yes they are "better" than regular soda because they don't have calories, but in the long term diet soda will do more damage because of how the body handles the artificial sugars and chemicals/additives.
---

Xenozoa425 posted...

coolboy11 posted...

diet sodas aren't good for you but they are much less harmful than most sugary sodas which in a single can can blow past recommended sugar outputs for the day.

In the short term, yes they are "better" than regular soda because they don't have calories, but in the long term diet soda will do more damage because of how the body handles the artificial sugars and chemicals/additives.

the additives and chemicals don't have a hugely negative effect on the body, there are no serious benefits but I have seen little to suggest they cause any actual damage on any remote scale comparable to sugar.
---

coolboy11 posted...

Xenozoa425 posted...

coolboy11 posted...

diet sodas aren't good for you but they are much less harmful than most sugary sodas which in a single can can blow past recommended sugar outputs for the day.

In the short term, yes they are "better" than regular soda because they don't have calories, but in the long term diet soda will do more damage because of how the body handles the artificial sugars and chemicals/additives.

the additives and chemicals don't have a hugely negative effect on the body, there are no serious benefits but I have seen little to suggest they cause any actual damage on any remote scale comparable to sugar.

I mentioned maltodextrin as an example of an additive that is actually worse than table sugar (stimulates insulin more than table sugar) and it's the main ingredient in artificial sweeteners like Splrnda, Equal, etc.

Caramel color is made from basically heating up corn with ammonia, and it creates sticky proteins that can clog up the body.
---

Aspartame doesn't cause brain cancer or anything like that, but there is concern that sweeteners can disrupt intestinal bacteria, leading to an apparent increased risk of metabolic diseases, like diabetes. How digestion works isn't massively well understood though so way more science is needed to work out exactly what the risk is.

Sugar soda by comparison doesn't have the same type of risk and is not actually bad for you in sensible amounts, but it's far too easy to have in excess. More than like 250ml and you've gone too far.

https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/4/688

Xenozoa425 posted...

In the short term, yes they are "better" than regular soda because they don't have calories, but in the long term diet soda will do more damage because of how the body handles the artificial sugars and chemicals/additives.

You know aspartame breaks down inside the body into essential amino acids, right?

Are you suggesting long term essential amino acids are bad for you?

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

You know aspartame breaks down inside the body into essential amino acids, right?

Are you suggesting long term essential amino acids are bad for you?

"Chemicals" "Unnatural"


---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Xenozoa425 posted...

In the short term, yes they are "better" than regular soda because they don't have calories, but in the long term diet soda will do more damage because of how the body handles the artificial sugars and chemicals/additives.

You know aspartame breaks down inside the body into essential amino acids, right?

Are you suggesting long term essential amino acids are bad for you?

Does amino acid make you trip balls harder than regular acid or not as hard?
---

xeno dont even bother trying to convince people here about the negatives of certain ingredients and foods because it always comes down to users here being in denial about it. what you are doing is nice and ive tried it many times before but it goes nowhere, people in the usa especially continue to get more sick and obese and they still refuse to understand that what they eat is causing them damage. denial is a strong thing.
---

DarkRoast posted...

"Chemicals" "Unnatural"

Shit I've been defeated how do I unvaccinate myself?

---

Not inherently. The main risk is that it can cause sugar cravings when your digestive system realizes it was cheated.
---

No, anyone who tells you that aspartame is worse for you than fucking high fructose corn syrup is either lying or has no idea what they are talking about
---

CircleOfManias posted...

Not inherently. The main risk is that it can cause sugar cravings when your digestive system realizes it was cheated.

It turns out sugar also causes sugar cravings and they're about the same as artificial sweeteners in that regard.

---