Corn Syrup in both correct?
I would think a full sugar soda be allot better then any corn syrup one,
Also Carbonation kills the “friendly” bacteria in the gut.
Just cause its “diet”, “sugar free” doesnt mean its good.
Mountain dew throwback
/thread
[quote]MODOK wrote:
F.T.T.W wrote:
Corn Syrup in both correct?
I would think a full sugar soda be allot better then any corn syrup one,
Also Carbonation kills the “friendly” bacteria in the gut.
Just cause its “diet”, “sugar free” doesnt mean its good.
LOL…where do people come up with this shit? Corn syrup in diet coke? Carbonated water kills intestinal flora? If that was the case, I would have shit myself to death and died of dehydration 15 years ago.
[/quote]
haha, well the first is a question? I dont drink the stuff, its crap.
Why would anybody that is on a strict program or even a decent program justify drinking soda period?!!!
[quote]blairrawlings wrote:
Maybe I am ignorant but isn’t America supposed to be the fattest country, so maybe there is some sort or correlation. I have tried to read up on the subject but the internet seems to be full of links claiming; Diet Pepsi gives you cancer, or Diet Coke will make your dick fall off.[/quote]
Actually AUS has overtaken us as the fattest.
Diet soda is fine from a physique standpoint and a much better alternative than regular. For health purposes obviously water is better, but a few diet sodas won’t kill ya. Weaken bones, maybe, but I’m sure you’d need quite a bit over the years
I don’t know why I bother sometimes but here we go again anyway…
1). Phenylalanine is not, by itself, an artificial sweetener.
2). Coke Zero (in most countries at least) is NOT sweetened with sucralose
3). They DO taste very different.
4). There is no corn syrup in either.
5). An easy way to think of it is Diet Pepsi vs Pepsi Max.
6). They would, in general, be fine apart from the caffeine content. However if one is dieting for an imminent BB show, one would probably leave them alone for a while.
I hope that helps somebody…
[quote]F.T.T.W wrote:
Corn Syrup in both correct?
I would think a full sugar soda be allot better then any corn syrup one,
Also Carbonation kills the “friendly” bacteria in the gut.
Just cause its “diet”, “sugar free” doesnt mean its good.
[/quote]
Where the heck did you get the idea that corn syrup is in both? They are OKAY to be consumed during a normal diet from a physique point of view. Even from a health perspective, they are OKAY as well if taken in moderation.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
blairrawlings wrote:
Maybe I am ignorant but isn’t America supposed to be the fattest country, so maybe there is some sort or correlation. I have tried to read up on the subject but the internet seems to be full of links claiming; Diet Pepsi gives you cancer, or Diet Coke will make your dick fall off.
Actually AUS has overtaken us as the fattest.
Diet soda is fine from a physique standpoint and a much better alternative than regular. For health purposes obviously water is better, but a few diet sodas won’t kill ya. Weaken bones, maybe, but I’m sure you’d need quite a bit over the years[/quote]
Lol, didn’t see your post there.
Its my understanding that coke zero and regular coke have the same formula, just different sweeteners. Diet coke has a different formula and different sweetener. Diet coke also sucks.
The same is to be said for pepsi and pepsi max versus diet pepsi. Diet pepsi also sucks.
Jason
[quote]MODOK wrote:
JPeggEFS wrote:
Its my understanding that coke zero and regular coke have the same formula, just different sweeteners. Diet coke has a different formula and different sweetener. Diet coke also sucks.
The same is to be said for pepsi and pepsi max versus diet pepsi. Diet pepsi also sucks.
Jason
Thats Northern people for ya. 
[/quote]
Lol I hope Diet Coke is cutting you a check.
Interesting Report:
From Medscape Medical News
ENDO 2009: Use of Artificial Sweeteners Linked to 2-Fold Increase in Diabetes
Crina Frincu-Mallos, PhD
People who use artificial sweeteners are heavier, more likely to have diabetes, and more likely to be insulin-resistant compared with nonusers, according to data presented here during ENDO 2009, the 91st annual meeting of The Endocrine Society.
Results show an inverse association between obesity and diabetes, on one side, and daily total caloric, carbohydrate, and fat intake, on the other side, when comparing artificial sweetener users and control subjects.
First author Kristofer S. Gravenstein, a postbaccalaureate researcher with the Clinical Research Branch at the National Institute of Aging (NIA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), said the association may reflect the increased use of artificial sweeteners by obese and/or diabetic study participants. “This is a cross-section study,” Mr. Gravenstein told Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology, “so there are limitations â?? we cannot say that artificial sweetener use causes obesity, we can say it is associated with it.”
Increased Use vs Increased Glucose Absorption
Artificial sweeteners activate sweet taste receptors in enteroendocrine cells, leading to the release of incretin, which is known to contribute to glucose absorption. Recent epidemiologic studies in Circulation (2008;117:754-761) and Obesity (2008;16:1894-1900) showed an association between diet soda consumption and the development of obesity and metabolic syndrome.
This report tested whether participants in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA), which began in 1958, differ in anthropometric measures, daily caloric intake, and glucose status, separating them into 3 different groups: artificial sweetener users, artificial sweetener nonusers, or controls.
A total of 1257 participants, with a mean age of 64.8 years (range, 21 - 96 years), had data on self-reported 7-day dietary intake, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), and anthropometric measures. The major artificial sweetener consumed was aspartame, preferred by 66% of BLSA participants, followed by saccharin (13%), sucralose (1.0%), and combinations of the three (21%).
“In our study, we were actually able to isolate what type of sweetener was used at a certain point in time, as we used food diaries, and not food questionnaires,” Mr. Gravenstein pointed out.
“When we first did this analysis, we found that people ate more fat before 1983, which is the year [of] a big increase in artificial sweetener consumption in the American population â?? it was actually when aspartame was approved and diet Coke was introduced,” he explained.
As a result, the study further analyzed data from a subset of participants, starting in 1983. Compared with 550 people who did not use artificial sweeteners, the 443 people who did were younger, heavier, and had a higher body mass index (BMI), yet they did not consume more calories from people who did not use artificial sweeteners. Fat, carbohydrate, protein, and total caloric intake were not different between the 2 groups (users vs nonusers).
Furthermore, Mr. Gravenstein noted that people who used artificial sweeteners “were less likely to have a normal OGTT, or they were less likely to be diagnosed as having a normal glucose homeostasis.”
In terms of glucose status, the impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and/or impaired fasting glucose (IFG), the data show that artificial sweetener users “were not different than the prediabetics, ie, they had the same prevalence of prediabetes,” he said, adding that “in our population, people who used artificial sweeteners were twice as likely to have diabetes, 8.8% compared to 4.4% for controls.”
Analyzing the data further, the investigators focused on a subpopulation, in which fasting insulin values were available from 374 nonusers and 311 artificial sweetener users. The users had a higher fasting glucose levels, higher fasting insulin levels, and a higher measure of insulin resistance, as measured by the homeostasis model assessment, but glycosylated hemoglobin A1C levels were similar between the 2 groups.
Alternative Hypothesis and Clinicians’ Role
The researchers suggest an alternative hypothesis, that artificial sweeteners modulate the metabolic rate through enteroendocrine cells, therefore contributing to the development of diabetes and/or obesity. However, this hypothesis needs further testing in longitudinal analysis and intervention studies, said the investigators.
“Also, it could be that artificial sweeteners are causing diabetes, or it could be that there is a higher use of them because a lot of physicians actually recommend people to use artificial sweeteners to prevent diabetes…” Mr. Gravenstein said. The researchers are planning to address this question with a prospective analysis.
“This is a very interesting study,” Rachel C. Edelen, MD, a pediatric endocrinology practitioner at the Aspen Centre in Rapid City, South Dakota, told Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology in an interview. “I diet screen all my patients, and they are not drinking enough milk. Usually, they replace the milk with something else, sweetened tea, Gatorade, etc, not just water. With my type 1 diabetics, the information they were getting from the hospital was to drink diet pop. But who even goes into the hospital and drinks pop?” she wondered.
Support for this study was provided by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Edelen and Mr. Gravenstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
ENDO 2009: The Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society: Abstract P2-478. Presented June 11, 2009.
-Ok, so the title sounds scary and would make a great news report, but there are important things to point out here. There are many limitations to this study, most of them the authors already admit to…but one of the most important things IMO is that they used self reported food diaries. One could argue that the user group under-reported caloric intake. So, I don’t think that this study tells us jack shit really (keep in mind we are only looking at a summary piece here and not the entire study methodology etc…) but…
What I did find interesting is the mention of the increase of incretin and subsequent increased glucose absorption. I am going to try to get a hold of those cited studies and see what they have to say.
I have heard that artificial sweeteners can induce an insulin response, but honestly haven’t read any of the literature regarding this. Anyone have anything good at their fingertips to share??
[quote]
Doc L wrote:
MODOK wrote:
-Ok, so the title sounds scary and would make a great news report, but there are important things to point out here. There are many limitations to this study, most of them the authors already admit to…but one of the most important things IMO is that they used self reported food diaries. One could argue that the user group under-reported caloric intake. So, I don’t think that this study tells us jack shit really (keep in mind we are only looking at a summary piece here and not the entire study methodology etc…) but…
What I did find interesting is the mention of the increase of incretin and subsequent increased glucose absorption. I am going to try to get a hold of those cited studies and see what they have to say.
I have heard that artificial sweeteners can induce an insulin response, but honestly haven’t read any of the literature regarding this. Anyone have anything good at their fingertips to share??
I would pull out my M60 and Rambo III this study, but I’ve got an ice cold diet soda in one hand and a glass of ice in another. It’ll have to wait.[/quote]
Of that I have no doubt, as the holes appear to be rather gaping. Interested in anything you have to contribute, especially on the incretin/insulin response.
waits, also with diet Coke in hand- burp (scuse meh)
Diet coke is overrated. Regular coke taste so much better.
[quote]redgladiator wrote:
Diet coke is overrated. Regular coke taste so much better.[/quote]
At this point coke diesel is just too sweet for me now. Although a few years ago I would have agreed
[quote]Stuntman Mike wrote:
Bullshit, drink all the diet pop you want. People who say water is the best is right, but diet pop and stuff like crystal light is just fine.
If your one of those paranoid types, I may see a problem with it, but if your a normal human being, drink it up. It’s a great way to curb a sweet craving.
It’s very physique friendly in my experience. [/quote]
Aspartame makes me physically ill (dizziness, nausea, headaches) and causes bloating. Sucralose on the other hand I tolerate just fine.
Your mileage may vary.
aspartame is known by the FDA to be a carcinogen causing Brain cancer. they tested it in mice and at moderate to high doses of aspartame the mice developed brain tumors… i wouldnt touch the stuff with a 20 ft poll personally
so that tiny 8oz can of coke zero in my cooler is going to make my fat and bloated, make me vomit before i get a brain tumor and die?
well shit.
i better enjoy the fuck out of it!
[quote]B rocK wrote:
so that tiny 8oz can of coke zero in my cooler is going to make my fat and bloated, make me vomit before i get a brain tumor and die?
well shit.
i better enjoy the fuck out of it![/quote]
It will also destroy your liver and eat your children.
Jason
[quote]olympianiac wrote:
aspartame is known by the FDA to be a carcinogen causing Brain cancer. they tested it in mice and at moderate to high doses of aspartame the mice developed brain tumors… i wouldnt touch the stuff with a 20 ft poll personally[/quote]
I had heard the same thing.
Another thing to note is there are a large number of people that are actually allergic to aspartame, which is why a lot of companies are switching to different products. I don’t think it’s related to the carcinogen scare, but one never knows.
For me, I’m HOOKED on Crush’s Diet Cream Soda as it tastes like the real deal. Oh my gawd it’s good and it doesn’t contain aspartame.
I think this is only available in Canada though.
All I can say is, if I want something sweet/to kick a craving I go for fruit juice or a piece of fruit.
[quote]talmid91 wrote:
All I can say is, if I want something sweet/to kick a craving I go for fruit juice or a piece of fruit.[/quote]
well aren’t you special.
-09’er