Diet soda in 'fat' shocker; Expands girth, hikes blood sugar: studies

New York Post ^ | June 30, 2011 | BILL SANDERSON AND GRANT JUNKIE

[AFreeBird]

You’re a real buzz kil.

But probably correct.

[Aqua225]

I read through most of the posts up till about 20 minutes ago: there seems to be this global warming-like conspiracy foisted on diet drinks -— that the consumption of them somehow makes your brain trigger hunger.

I seriously doubt this.

Let me tell you: I am a heavy dude. I am not “morbidly obese” by any means, I can do a 70m 4 miles, only breaking a sweat if the humidity is high and temp over 75 degrees outside, but I do need to lose about 65 pounds to be at my “ideal weight”.

Diet drinks allow me to eat more, plain and simple. I love to eat -— no ifs, ands or buts about it. I love the taste of Big Macs, McD apple pies, and Burger King Whoppers. I love Taco Bell tacos, too, depending on the location of the store (some have the most tasteless tacos to me).

Drinking a diet soda allows me to eat more than I could if I drank plain water or a sweet drink. Plain water doesn’t go well with heavy eating. It will allow the grease/oils in foods to float out of solution in your gut, and either give you a heavy feeling, or make you plain sick. Sweet sodas shut off your hunger by triggering the dopamine release you get from eating something really sweet. Diet sodas solve the grease & oil problem without impacting your hunger channel. Hence, I can eat more (for me, its more like _taste_ more food).

I suspect many people who love food either do the same consciously or unconsciously. But in the end, just like cocaine use or smoking, it’s a choice.

I like to smoke cigars — they can actually suppress my desire to eat, like amphetamines, but smoking usually takes longer to kill you than amphetamines. My doctor refuses to prescribe amphetamines, and I don’t really want to end up addicted & psychotic from use of crystal meth, so nicotine is my drug of choice.

Finally, I do diet occasionally, I don’t want to get too rolly polly, and recently research indicated yoyo dieting mice were just as long-lived as perpetually thin mice, so I am not too worried about my health.

Finally, diabetes does run in my family -— and it’s not because of a genetic trait to desire to eat large amounts of food. My brother has juvenile diabetes, where his pancreas was non-functional since the age of two. If it weren’t for diet sodas, he would always have to drink water, and no matter what some people would imply about diet sodas here, some of them are tasty and generally more desirable than water. We long since passed the days where water is hard to get, its simply that some of us find diet sodas to be more tasty than water, at *certain* specific times (mood?).

While I make no claim that my reasoning is *the only reason* why obesity runs rampant in the diet soda drinking population, this is one of the angles.

[Persevero]

“To me it’s a cheap tinny imitation of either sugar or HFCS sweetened Coke.”

Diet Coke does not taste like Coke to me.

Diet Dr. Pepper tastes like Dr. Pepper! But Diet Coke is like its own flavor (which I like).

I’ll turn down any diet Pepsi. Can’t stand it. Low bubble-to-liquid ratio!

[who knows what evil?]

My wife quit drinking Diet Pepsi cold turkey nearly fifteen years ago, and without making ANY other changes in her diet; dropped twenty pounds over the next couple of months.

[Ken H]

So kids in middle school and high school will lose all interest in getting high on drugs?

Kids consume more alcohol and tobacco than marijuana, yet organized crime outfits don't make their money selling these two substances to kids. The money goes to the corner liquor store and Annheiser-Busch, rather than the Mexican cartels.

See data tables for past month drug usage by 8th graders from 1991-2008 at the following URLs. Note that alcohol and tobacco use have steeply declined, while marijuana use has done the opposite. Now how could that happen, given that marijuana is prohibited, and alcohol and tobacco are legal for adults?

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/mtf/8th/marijuana.htm

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/mtf/8th/alcohol.htm

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/mtf/8th/cigarette.htm

[varyouga]

No, but legitimate pharmacies with a storefront will be far less likely to sell to kids. Very few liquor stores still do, even in NYC. It's not hard to regulate a legitimate industry with physical stores. Very hard to regulate a goverment-created black market that keeps moving.

Even with today's artificially high prices, kids don't buy enough drugs to keep dealers in business. The majority of their clients are adults and would rather buy from a legitimate store.

The artificial black market only exists because of prohibition. Otherwise, there would be little profit. The true market price of cannabis is close to dry basil. Powder cocaine would be priced similar to natural caffeine powder.

I tutor highschool kids and every single one has said drugs are easier to buy for them than alcohol. They can buy from a dealer right in school. The majority simply don't want to use them. It has nothing to do with laws or availability.

[Vigilantcitizen]

I do know that authentic Little Debbie Nutty Bars give you much more chance of a smile than does the WalMart analog product.

That's truth right there.

I also know that I eat fatty foods and sugar snacks...drink real soda and beer...smoke about a pack a day...and have since high school...class of 85. I am well within normal weight for my height, normal blood sugar, normal heart rate and lung function(Stress test in 2008). The scientists should study me, but I doubt they could keep up working in the Georgia heat.

[DustyMoment]

While this “study” is titillating, there are substantial questions that need to be addressed. In the 1960s, a “study” revealed that the product Sweet ‘n Low (the only sugar substitute available for diabetics) was a carcinogenic. The “study” was taken so seriously that the FDA banned the sale of Sweet ‘n Low. A subsequent study many years later revealed that the original study fed lab rats 800 times the normal daily intake of Sweet’n Low, thus leading to the conclusion that Sweet ‘n Low was a carcinogenic. The ban against the sale of Sweet ‘n Low was reversed, although the product was never removed from the market.

Also in the 1960s, a different “study” claimed that cyclamates, an ingredient in Kool-Aid, was also a carcinogenic. Once again, after further studies were performed, the original results were found to be incorrect.

Often, what happens with these “studies” (assuming that the sponsor of the study is not a contributing factor in the final “result”) is that a lab conducts a “study” and releases the results in order to obtain additional funding to conduct additional studies. Like just about anything else, the first lab to market with study results get additional funding dollars to perform additional studies. More funding dollars means people keep their jobs and the lab gets to make more profit for their investors.

All is not as it seems in these “studies” and it is worthwhile to remain circumspect until the other shoe drops. With respect to this “study”, the other shoe has not dropped and probably won't for months to come. As shown in the previous two examples, the devil remains in the details.

[Borax Queen]

After a year or so my chronic back and neck pain and chronic tiredness were at least 90% improved.

I got addicted to Diet Cherry Coke for about the last year ++. Finally stopped about a week ago (I hope forever!), trying to do more raw/veggie/natural type of real food, checking pH for acidity, dropped morning coffee, and switched to green tea, etc.

That would be sure great if my chronic back issues would be alleviated even slightly (those were there before the soda). I know it has already helped with the fatigue issues... And I've already dropped a few pounds in my face -- I wasn't overweight but definitely felt doughy from the sodas.

Have to figure out every way to be in tip-top shape since it's up to us to help ourselves, coming sooner than later with CommunistCare. Until they take our herbs and supplements away, then I'll have to try to grow them or something.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Don’t tell us. Buy some infomercial space on a WGN Network to air at 3 am.

If you can’t get rich producing bogus studies, you can get rich capitalizing on them.

[who knows what evil?]

Us? Who the hell is ‘us’? You think the study is bogus; that is fine with me. I was just making a statement of fact that MAY be of some interest to some people...I have nothing to gain, and resent the implication that may be my motive.

[who knows what evil?]

Until they take our herbs and supplements away, then I'll have to try to grow them or something.

That may be closer than you think...there are already local farmers producing beta carotene enhanced tomatoes and vitamin-D enhanced mushrooms...I'm sure that market will see increased demand for the reasons you cite...

[Joya]

Thanks for the ping.

REF

DIET SODA IS

JUST AS BAD AS / WORSE THAN

REGULAR SODA.

[Quix]

Sure.

Please see post 104.

[Quix]

I gather you have not researched the quality studies about the artificial sweetners.

The extremely honorable Pastor Henry Wright of

http://www.beinhealth.com

Has a DVD with quite a list of such studies and their sobering conclusions.

Quite a list of sharp MD’s consult with him on a regular basis—with good cause. The Lord has shown him the reasons many people are not healed of cancers and a list of other deadly, many rare deadly diseases not profitable for big pharma to bother with.

If you wish to hazard your neurological health with the artificial sweetners—that is your business.

However, others may wish freedom from the debilitating effects of such designer poisons.

Thankfully, there are many QUALITY studies available to give folks wanting better health solid information to base their decisions on.

Sometimes I think FR is a magnet for flip naysayers with little better to do than carp.

[Quix]

Actually, if you wish to talk about BIG BROTHER--investigate Agenda 21 and what the NANNY STATE is REALLY up to.

Here's a good thread to begin with:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2738418/posts

.

[Quix]

The carcinogenic aspect of such stuff pales in comparison to the devastating effects on the neurological system.

Sheesh.

Wake up folks.

[Marie]

I know that I’m way late into this debate, but I wonder: Were the rats in the study allowed to feed freely or were they given the same chow as the controls in the same amounts only with the addition of sweetener?

I think that all the criticism revolving around the human studies is correct, but the rats may back this theory up. They weren’t eating the sweetener and fooling themselves into thinking that they could eat more.

If they were free-feeding, then the sweetener could be causing an increase in appetite. If the food amounts were controlled, then the sweetener could be causing the increase in fat all by itself.