FitDay Discussion Boards

FitDay Discussion Boards (https://www.fitday.com/fitness/forums/)
-   Weight Loss Tips (https://www.fitday.com/fitness/forums/weight-loss-tips/)
-   -   Attn Soda (pop) drinkers!! (https://www.fitday.com/fitness/forums/weight-loss-tips/571-attn-soda-pop-drinkers.html)

buda15 03-04-2010 11:08 AM

Attn Soda (pop) drinkers!!
 
We have all heard how unhealthy drinking soda can be for us. I got little different perspective from a local clinic the other day and figured I would share it.

Sugar content of a 20 oz bottle:

Coke = 14 tsp
Fanta = 16 tsp
Mtn Dew = 19 tsp

Sugar content of a 8.4 oz can:

Red Bull = 7 tsp

I cannot load the photo at work but I will put it up tonight. Disturbing!

buda15 03-05-2010 12:47 AM

1 Attachment(s)
here is the pic...

http://www.fitday.com/fitness/forums...kers-sugar.jpg

finallyfree73 03-05-2010 08:32 AM

I am saving this pic on my computer so I can look at it when I get my Mt Dew crave! Thanks! It's sickening and I'm glad you posted it!!

VitoVino 12-23-2011 06:42 AM

In my opinion, soda is liquid death in a can. And diet soda is just as bad because of the artificial sweeteners.

01gt4.6 12-23-2011 07:18 AM


Originally Posted by VitoVino (Post 65850)
In my opinion, soda is liquid death in a can. And diet soda is just as bad because of the artificial sweeteners.

Ditto

neurogrrl 02-04-2012 09:02 PM

Actually
 
unless you found something in a really obscure journal, the evidence base is not there for artificial sweeteners being so unhealthy. There are many, many shady websites with dramatic claims, but they never seem to post any solid scientific evidence.

RogueSlayer 02-05-2012 12:56 AM

Great photo, really brings it home how bad soda is! Me, well I still drink Pepsi Max as it's still better than stuffing my face with chocolate, the Pepsi satisfies my cravings... having said that I have cut back A LOT, just a couple a night now if that.

VitoVino 02-05-2012 01:05 AM


Originally Posted by neurogrrl (Post 71766)
unless you found something in a really obscure journal, the evidence base is not there for artificial sweeteners being so unhealthy. There are many, many shady websites with dramatic claims, but they never seem to post any solid scientific evidence.

You mean sites like Medicinenet?


Aspartame is one of the most controversial artificial sweeteners. There are numerous web sites, books, and articles stating various reasons why aspartame should not be consumed. Some site studies to support their theories while others base their claims on industry-related conspiracies. One fact is that aspartame does get metabolized, meaning that it doesn't get excreted in the same form that it is when ingested. This is the reason why it can't be consumed by people with the metabolism disorder PKU. The following is a summary of some of the controversial dangers of consuming aspartame.

The presence of chlorine is thought to be the most dangerous component of sucralose. Chlorine is considered a carcinogen and has been used in poisonous gas, disinfectants, pesticides, and plastics. The digestion and absorption of sucralose is not clear due to a lack of long-term studies on humans. The majority of studies were done on animals for short lengths of time. The alleged symptoms associated with sucralose are gastrointestinal problems (bloating, gas, diarrhea, nausea), skin irritations (rash, hives, redness, itching, swelling), wheezing, cough, runny nose, chest pains, palpitations, anxiety, anger, moods swings, depression, and itchy eyes. The only way to be sure of the safety of sucralose is to have long-term studies on humans done.
I can go on all day with this, but I choose not to consume ARTIFICIAL sweeteners in my diet. The reality is, some of these sweeteners were pushed through quickly for approval by the FDA without adequate study.

FACT: There are numerous claims from people suffering side effects.

If a person chooses to be part of an experiment by ingesting artificial sweeteners, that's fine. In 50 years the world will know the deal. But there is enough "evidence" at the moment to be cautious at the least, while avoidance is probably best.

VitoVino 02-05-2012 01:29 AM

And
 
There's also mounting evidence that diet soda makes you fat.


June 29, 2011 10:09 AM
New study is wake-up call for diet soda drinkers

By
Ryan Jaslow

(CBS) Sorry, soda lovers - even diet drinks can make you fat.

That's the word from authors of two new studies, presented Sunday at a meeting of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego.

"Data from this and other prospective studies suggest that the promotion of diet sodas as healthy alternatives may be ill-advised" Dr. Helen Hazuda, professor of medicine at University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, said in a written statement. "They may be free of calories, but not of consequences."

Consequences like weight gain.

For one study, researchers at the center followed 474 diet soda drinkers, 65 to 74 years of age, for almost 10 years. They found that diet soda drinkers' waists grew 70 percent more than non-drinkers. Specifically, drinking two or more diet sodas a day busted belt sizes five times more than people who avoided the stuff entirely.

And as waist size grows, so do health risks - including diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and other chronic conditions.

Just how does diet soda make you fat? The other study may hold the answer. In it, researchers divided mice into two groups, one of which ate food laced with the popular sweetener aspartame. After three months, the mice eating aspartame-chow had higher blood sugar levels than the mice eating normal food. The authors said in a written statement their findings could "contribute to the associations observed between diet soda consumption and the risk of diabetes in humans."

But how?

"Artificial sweeteners could have the effect of triggering appetite but unlike regular sugars they don't deliver something that will squelch the appetite," Sharon Fowler, obesity researcher at UT Health Science Center at San Diego and a co-author on both of these studies, told the Daily Mail. She also said sweeteners could inhibit brain cells that make you feel full.

So if sugar soda is no good, and diet soda isn't either - what should we be drinking?

Dr. Hazuda told the Daily Mail, "I think prudence would dictate drinking water."
New study is wake-up call for diet soda drinkers - HealthPop - CBS News

So what this all boils down to is, calling soda "liquid death in a can" is quite apropos.

handcycle2005 02-05-2012 01:56 AM

Aspartame breaks down into phenylalanine which is an amino acid present in all protein.
Sufferers of PKU must follow a highly restricted diet.

There are no documented studies confirming the claimed side effects of aspartame.

VitoVino 02-05-2012 02:23 AM


Originally Posted by handcycle2005 (Post 71784)
Aspartame breaks down into phenylalanine which is an amino acid present in all protein.
Sufferers of PKU must follow a highly restricted diet.

There are no documented studies confirming the claimed side effects of aspartame.


LOL! I find it interesting that you vehemently put down all natural health supplements as unsafe and unproven, yet here you defend an ARTIFICIAL sweetener! :p

Bottom line, like I said above:


If a person chooses to be part of an experiment by ingesting artificial sweeteners, that's fine. In 50 years the world will know the deal. But there is enough "evidence" at the moment to be cautious at the least, while avoidance is probably best.
:p

handcycle2005 02-05-2012 02:35 AM

Those natural supplements are not subject to the testing and scrutiny of additives.

Specifically by a law the industry requested. So you can thank Congress and Clinton for the deaths that have been caused by natural supplements such as ephedra.

Just because something is artificial does not mean it's unsafe just as natural does not mean it is safe.

VitoVino 02-05-2012 02:45 AM

Furthermore...
 
... to claim that "There are no documented studies confirming the claimed side effects of aspartame." is misleading. There are studies which



The effects of aspartame have been studied on various
species, including humans, rats, mice and rabbits. Most
studies described in the literature have a macroscopic
approach. If no adverse effects are visible after a single large
administered dose of aspartame, it is believed that aspartame
has no effect. Further studies are not carried out microscopically
to demonstrate possible adverse effects on the
cellular basis.
Thus, results obtained from different studies
vary from severe adverse effects to none observed.
The aim of this study was to investigate the direct and
indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain, and
we propose that excessive aspartame ingestion might be
involved in the pathogenesis of certain mental disorders

(DSM-IV-TR 2000) and also in compromised learning and emotional functioning.

Conclusion

It was seen that aspartame disturbs amino acid metabolism,
protein structure and metabolism, integrity of nucleic acids,
neuronal function, endocrine balances and changes in the
brain concentrations of catecholamines. It was also reported
that aspartame and its breakdown products cause nerves to
fire excessively, which indirectly causes a very high rate of
neuron depolarization.
The energy systems for certain
required enzyme reactions become compromised, thus
indirectly leading to the inability of enzymes to function
optimally. The ATP stores in the cells are depleted, indicating
that low concentrations of glucose are present in the cells,
and this in turn will indirectly decrease the synthesis of
acetylcholine, glutamate and GABA. The intracellular calcium
uptake has been altered
, thus the functioning of glutamate as an excitatory neurotransmitter is inhibited.

Mitochondria are damaged, which could lead to apoptosis of
cells and infertility in men and also a lowered rate of
oxidative metabolism are present, thus lowering concentrations
of the transmitters glutamate and production of GABA.
The cellular walls are destroyed; thus, the cells (endothelium
of the capillaries) are more permeable, leading to a
compromised BBB. Thus, overall oxidative stress and neurodegeneration
are present. From all the adverse effects caused by this product, it is
suggested that serious further testing and research be
undertaken to eliminate any and all controversies surrounding
this product.


http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/aspartamebrain.pdf

VitoVino 02-05-2012 02:51 AM


Originally Posted by handcycle2005 (Post 71786)
Those natural supplements are not subject to the testing and scrutiny of additives.

Specifically by a law the industry requested. So you can thank Congress and Clinton for the deaths that have been caused by natural supplements such as ephedra.

Just because something is artificial does not mean it's unsafe just as natural does not mean it is safe.

Just noting your, in my opinion, inconsistency here.

Now back to the topic at hand. Look at this study at the microscopic level. Are you still going to stick with your statement "There are no documented studies confirming the claimed side effects of aspartame." Will it take another 50 years at the microscopic level to prove out what will happen at the macroscopic level, or do people defending Aspartame as 'safe' have enough EVIDENCE at this point to advise caution???

handcycle2005 02-05-2012 01:23 PM

Sorry for the delay in replying, I was researching, doing my Sunday ride and taking care of some things at this end.(No, not the game. :D )

I don't believe there's any inconsistency. Food supplements should be held to the same standards for safety and testing as food additives.
I find it quite telling that the industry does not want their products subjected to scrutiny and lobbied for(and got) legislation to that effect. What are they hiding?

To the study you quoted.
There is liberal use of phrases such as
which could lead..., It was also reported..., may act on, is believed..., and similar.

These are phrases of opinion, not fact.
Despite this, the conclusion is presented as proven.

The whole paper is a rehashing of other studies with no original research or teting done to confirm previous studies.

Even the studies quoted and referenced make claims without proof.
Example: A claim is made that ingestion of aspartame during pregnancy causes brain tumors and retardation.

No mention is made of any study done to prove this claim.

There are many causes of both tumors and retardation and it would require a major effort to isolate aspartame as the

culprit yet none is made.

A claim is made that blindness will result from normal consumer useage yet I see no indication that there has been a major

increase in unexplained blindness here or elsewhere.

What I consider to be most damaging to the credibility is the following quote from one of the referenced studies.


In addition, Mehl-Madrona (2005) observed that
when the temperature of aspartame exceeds 86F, the wood
alcohol in aspartame is converted into formaldehyde and
then to formic acid, which in turn causes metabolic acidosis.
The methanol toxicity is thought to mimic the symptoms of
multiple sclerosis. According to them, symptoms of fibromyalgia,
spasms, shooting pains, numbness in the legs,
cramps, vertigo, dizziness, headaches, tinnitus, joint pain,
depression, anxiety, slurred speech, blurred vision or memory
loss have been attributed to aspartame.
One can of diet soda will provide 10 mg of methanol while the above toxic effects are present in doses of 10 ml or more.
The fact that this information is not mentioned calls into question the ethics of the researchers.

Methanol is present in greater amounts in fruit juice, fermented beverages, is a by product of digestion and is produced by intestinal bacteria.
The use of those symptoms is just a scare tactic and has no place in scientific inquiry.

Also, the mentioned symptoms have a wide variety of causes and is not specific to aspartame.

RunbikeSki 02-05-2012 02:04 PM

Peace brothers.

There is a point in these kinds of discussions where our believe systems come into play, and there isn't much point in pushing the issue any further.

VitoVino 02-05-2012 02:25 PM

That's all well and good, HC, but you didn't answer the question:

Do people defending Aspartame as 'safe' have enough EVIDENCE at this point to advise caution?

That's what it boils down to. It doesn't matter what you or I say, or think, there is evidence that points towards CAUTION when it comes to the STILL unknown effects of artificial sweeteners which have been on the market for a relatively short period of time.

From your defense of artificial sweeteners, it's pretty apparent that your answer to the above is "no". Which is fine, that's your opinion. But your opinion is not going to change the multitude of symptoms that people have reported, it's not going to change the fact that artificial sweeteners are still relatively new, and it's not going to change the fact that there's a potential that they are still harmful. And considering the multitude of symptoms reported, caution would be advised.

VitoVino 02-05-2012 02:41 PM


Originally Posted by RunbikeSki (Post 71835)
Peace brothers.

There is a point in these kinds of discussions where our believe systems come into play, and there isn't much point in pushing the issue any further.

Oh, no problem. HC and I are just having a friendly, respectful debate. This is how gentlemen duke it out. :p

handcycle2005 02-05-2012 03:29 PM

Vito, I do believe aspartame is safe.

This article makes the argument why far better than I can.

Also, this link from that article dissects a large study and explains in detail how it's poorly conducted and why it's conclusions are invalid.
Make sure you have some time, it's a dense read.

crazigerl 02-05-2012 03:49 PM


Originally Posted by VitoVino (Post 71840)
Oh, no problem. HC and I are just having a friendly, respectful debate. This is how gentlemen duke it out. :p

Personally I appreciate this kind of debate, it is actually full of passion and perhaps a bromance is on the horizon. lol.

Seriously though, two points of view gives me much more to go research and make my own decision.

RunbikeSki 02-06-2012 12:43 AM


Originally Posted by crazigerl (Post 71858)
Personally I appreciate this kind of debate, it is actually full of passion and perhaps a bromance is on the horizon. lol.

Seriously though, two points of view gives me much more to go research and make my own decision.

Good point gerl


All times are GMT -12. The time now is 03:18 PM.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.