I'd disagree on the 2nd half. My mother tried to quit drinking Coca-Cola and got many headaches. She was addicted to caffeine and it did hurt her. I also know of many people that gets pains whenever they drink something like coffee, espresso, or other caffinated drinks.
With caffeine, the problem I find with it is that it is absolutely TERRIBLE for you if you have to do anything physical. Back in HS, before football practice, if I had a diet or regular soda before practice, I would be more sluggish. During summers when I worked construction, I would feel sluggish after awhile if I drank soda before going to work (don't like to drink coffee).
There are a lot of allegations e.g. a neurotoxin, causes cancer, causes diabetes, causes seizures, causes depression, etc.
None of these have been consistently demonstrated in studies.
Compared to the sugar that it replaces, with its provable significant health effects, dental decay and obesity, it seems extremely safe.
Hate to break it to you but that tag is only so that the retailer doesn't accidentally remove it, the customer is allowed to remove the tag and their discretion.
I was (am still partially) addicted to Caffeine free Diet Pepsi. I used to drink ~4-5 cans per day of that last year. When I think of it, i want it. (I dont like diet pepsi though, just caffeine free diet pepsi).
Then I stopped purchasing it (b/c i wanted to get rid of my habbit) and started drinking more water. The difference I felt is that while drinking pepsi, i was more lazy and sleepy and used to get tired easily. Not anymore.
couple of weeks ago, I decided to purchase a 36pack of the caffeine free diet pepsi again and found myself to be drinking ~2-3 cans again per day and the lazy/sleepy pattern re-emerged. Once i run out of this 36 pack, I am not gonna purchase it again (just to refrain from drinking it).
Whenever I dont drink pepsi/coke, i drink water instead. Usually drink like ~4-5 bottles of water per day.
Then I stopped purchasing it (b/c i wanted to get rid of my habbit) and started drinking more water. The difference I felt is that while drinking pepsi, i was more lazy and sleepy and used to get tired easily. Not anymore.
couple of weeks ago, I decided to purchase a 36pack of the caffeine free diet pepsi again and found myself to be drinking ~2-3 cans again per day and the lazy/sleepy pattern re-emerged. Once i run out of this 36 pack, I am not gonna purchase it again (just to refrain from drinking it).
Whenever I dont drink pepsi/coke, i drink water instead. Usually drink like ~4-5 bottles of water per day.
Man-made materials recently created in the last 50 years, for the purpose of human consumption, have not been around long enough to positively determine any long-term detrimental effects on human beings. This is especially true in a well developed capitalist society such as the USA, which possesses many reasons not to find such proof.
For many conservative people, even a remote possibility of personal harm is enough to provide reason to avoid consumption or use of a contentious product. Therefore, if it is possible that man-made food additives may harm the body, the prudent person may make a reasonable and logical decision not to consume a product containing such man-made food additives.
The need for proof of harm is subjective. Some people find enough proof from realization through personal experience. Such examples include headaches, nausea, fatigue, and memory loss. Other people may also experience such symptoms but may not realize the experience or notice a link to consumption of a specific product.
The validity of "peer reviewed" scientific proof is dependent on monetary, political, and trust issues, thereby becoming unreliable to the general populace. Sometimes proof can be found and then argued to be invalid. Other times proof has not yet been found and this lack of proof can be argued to be inconclusive.
Many people find safety in believing scientific negatives that cannot be proven; specifically that aspartame is safe since it has not been proven otherwise. Such people often resort to name-calling and other belligerent activity to cover up their inner doubts or dislike for people leading more conservative, safe, and therefore boring lifestyles. There have been examples of such inappropriate and belligerent activity in this thread.
I agree with the more prudently conservative people in this thread that have decided not to include uncertain, man-made materials in their choice of dietary consumption. My logical decision is due to many factors, some of which include the following:
The political, governmental, and private organizations I believe are inconsiderate of my personal health and general well-being generally include any organization caught in any controversy. This specifically includes the US government and its agencies, including the FDA, and most large private organizations that make money from wide spread consumption of their "proven" laboratory products. Many legal workers believe that innocent people are not involved in damaging legal situations, such as false accusations. By association, I believe innocent companies, organizations, and government institutions are not involved in public controversy.
For many conservative people, even a remote possibility of personal harm is enough to provide reason to avoid consumption or use of a contentious product. Therefore, if it is possible that man-made food additives may harm the body, the prudent person may make a reasonable and logical decision not to consume a product containing such man-made food additives.
The need for proof of harm is subjective. Some people find enough proof from realization through personal experience. Such examples include headaches, nausea, fatigue, and memory loss. Other people may also experience such symptoms but may not realize the experience or notice a link to consumption of a specific product.
The validity of "peer reviewed" scientific proof is dependent on monetary, political, and trust issues, thereby becoming unreliable to the general populace. Sometimes proof can be found and then argued to be invalid. Other times proof has not yet been found and this lack of proof can be argued to be inconclusive.
Many people find safety in believing scientific negatives that cannot be proven; specifically that aspartame is safe since it has not been proven otherwise. Such people often resort to name-calling and other belligerent activity to cover up their inner doubts or dislike for people leading more conservative, safe, and therefore boring lifestyles. There have been examples of such inappropriate and belligerent activity in this thread.
I agree with the more prudently conservative people in this thread that have decided not to include uncertain, man-made materials in their choice of dietary consumption. My logical decision is due to many factors, some of which include the following:
- the belief that these man-made materials are unsafe for human use or consumption by people and organizations I have personally deemed to be considerate of my personal health and well being,
- the belief such man-made materials are safe for my use and consumption by political, governmental, and private organizations I have personally deemed to be inconsiderate of my personal health and general well-being,
- personally experienced health effects such as headaches, nausea, and fatigue after consumption of specific food products,
- food choices historically chosen to be safe for consumption by my ancestors as compared with the relative uncertainty regarding man-made food additives, and
- the massive proliferation of health problems in our "highly advanced" society where such food additives have become commonplace.
The political, governmental, and private organizations I believe are inconsiderate of my personal health and general well-being generally include any organization caught in any controversy. This specifically includes the US government and its agencies, including the FDA, and most large private organizations that make money from wide spread consumption of their "proven" laboratory products. Many legal workers believe that innocent people are not involved in damaging legal situations, such as false accusations. By association, I believe innocent companies, organizations, and government institutions are not involved in public controversy.
SagaLore
Elite Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 24,036
- 21
- 81
I don't know anything about diet sodas and weight gain, however at my previous employer a coworker had dangerously high blood pressure and waas on the verge of getting knee surgery because of arthritis. He drank about 6-12 diet Cokes a day. As a 'let's see if this works' step his doctor had him cut our the diet sodas, and over the next week or two the blood pressure dropped (still high, but not dangerously so), and his joint inflammation reduced so much he didn't have the surgery.
I'm not sure if the artificial sweetener was the culprit; I'm sure the sodium was a factor.
Anecdotal, not scientific. But compelling; I for one can't stand the taste of aspartame in anything. I'd much rather have unsweetened than aspartame.
I'm not sure if the artificial sweetener was the culprit; I'm sure the sodium was a factor.
Anecdotal, not scientific. But compelling; I for one can't stand the taste of aspartame in anything. I'd much rather have unsweetened than aspartame.
LOL! 12 cans a day!
<Bluto>
Holy ******!
</Bluto>
<UT2004>
Holy ******!
</UT2004>
I drink a can every other day or so. Water FTW!
newParadigm
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2003
- 3,667
- 1
- 0
Kelemvor
Lifer
- May 23, 2002
- 16,928
- 8
- 81
I've seen some studies that show people gain weight when drinking diet soda because they order more food because the DIet Soda lets them do that. Basically if you go to McDonalds it's OK to get the double quarter pounded and the super size fries because you're drinkign diet soda so that makes up for the difference... It's mainly a psychological thing.
I just wanted to add a website with some good nutritional information hosted by an actual osteopathic physician.
http://www.mercola.com/
Here is an article from the British Medical Journal, titled Aspartame and its effects on health.
http://www.mercola.com/
Here is an article from the British Medical Journal, titled Aspartame and its effects on health.
The Ramazzini study is probably the most famous of all of the Aspartame studies but has since been found to be flawed.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/hea...ial-sweetener-given-the-all-clear.html
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter