Hey, you get points for that. Totally.
I was not quite that bad, but I drank a Coke Zero in the morning, a Coke with lunch, and another Coke mid-afternoon. Still drink the morning Coke Zero (I don’t like coffee, if you’re wondering) but replaced the two Cokes with unsweetened ice tea. That’s a lot of sugar out of my diet that I really did not need in the first place.
I’m one of them, too. Also with the inadvertent [re]testing over the years. No gut symptoms in my case, but brainfog within an hour, then psoriasis and arthritis in the next 12 to 24. Consuming in conjunction with sugar provides about a 5x multiplier, though no type or sane amount of sugar on its own has any noticeable effect.
Point. I’m open to the notion that people can react poorly to the stuff for various reasons. However, I’ve met a number of people who ascribe various symptoms-of-life to the stuff and seem to be doing it for fashion reasons. On reflection, I should have picked something that isn’t actually really important to some people and is, in fact, pure nonsense, like those blood group diet things.
Neat it is, then!
It wasn’t really all that long ago that the medical community (starting with Europe, I think) thought malt-based drinks were good for your health (ex: for invalids and infants). That’s all I have to say!
You gotta die from something.
Bedside manners!!!
For some reason the picture on this post reminded me of the
Mel Ramos Pepsi pop art
= funding…
What you are describing is known in research as confounding. The A -> B apparent relationship has been clouded (confounded) by the likely presence of other factors.
Which does not negate their observations. It contextualizes the findings and points the way to better controlled studies in the future. Maybe separate out the smokers and analyze separately. Maybe randomize the groups into arms of a study so that the healthy and unhealthy are mixed in the same proportions. Maybe blind the researchers and participants to the study outcomes and try to mask the soft drink or use fruit juice as a control. Lots and lots of ways to work on this if they are serious about the research.
Especially with the amount of rum I put in it… or whisky depending on the mood.
Eating a Whopper and a Coke and steering with one of your knees while driving down the highway is super not good for you, or for anybody else
From a scientific review article:
Aspartame is composed of phenylalanine (50%), aspartic acid (40%) and methanol (10%). … Methanol, which forms 10% of the broken down product, is converted in the body to formate, which can either be excreted or can give rise to formaldehyde, diketopiperazine (a carcinogen) and a number of other highly toxic derivatives.
Not entirely benign, particularly if you’re replacing a lot of sugars with it. A friend of mine developed problems related to it.
It seems the research on its safety is not conclusive.
My internet search hasn’t been able to turn up the articles I’ve seen. American information swamps the internet. It’s not surprising. My memory isn’t great, but my recollection is that one reason American chocolate is fermented - or perhaps, fermented longer - is that there are only a few places where chocolate is processed, and these are inland and distant from the ports where the raw materials arrive. European chocolate is either not fermented, or fermented a much shorter time. I’ve spoken to Americans who refer to American chocolate as “repulsive cheese”. It’s a long time since I’ve tasted American chocolate (forty years or so) and I don’t recall that. It did taste different from European chocolate, that’s for sure. According to Wiki, chocolate is fermented for seven days as an initial process.
IIRC a artificially sweetened soft drink will have the same effect on your insulin response. This insulin response makes your body burn sugar and store fat. Without the actual sugar to store the only difference with a normally sweetened soft drink is that the hunger/sugar-crash comes sooner.
As a rule of thumb I go by: If the fake sugar fools me, it will also fool my body.
I’m unconvinced fruit juice is better for you then soft drinks. If you add in some fiber, in the form of the fruit pulp, you may slow the absorption and postpone the sugar crash, maybe even slightly straighten the insulin graph, but as far as I can tell the difference between soda and juice is minimal.
Yeah, so shouldn’t it be something a bit more awesome than… Pepsi?
Then, it would mean there would be no discernible effect. I think a study like this needs a few controls: carbonated water, carbonated 100% juice and possibly naturally sparkling water.
Honest question, what about bubbly water? I drink a lot of it (sometimes with vaguely natural flavours and no sweeteners, sometimes plain). I know it’s not good for your teeth, but are they not good for you in the same way sweetened soft drinks are? It would be an interesting data-point for correlating the problematic ingredients.
Hmm….Well, apparently carbonated water does NOT affect bone density, after all…
Recent info, updated April 2019:
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
