Diet Drinks are not killing you

https://medium.com/the-method/diet-drinks-arent-killing-you-54c9e5d06c30

60 65 9 years ago

valuearb• 9 years ago

I still quit, and am happier for it.

zenonu• 9 years ago

My 3pm headaches that'd come on because I was drinking 2 diet drinks a day completely disappeared when I quit. I still crave the bitter sweet taste of a Diet Coke, but fuck those headaches. The occasional regular soda drink is that much more satisfying instead as well.

mahyarm• 9 years ago

How much of it was sodium or caffeine?

nottorp• 9 years ago

Funny, I thought Diet Coke tastes like plastic. I'd rather drink less of the normal than experience the 'diet' taste.

bkjelden• 9 years ago

+1. Quitting diet soda has allowed me to regain control of my appetite.

sundvor• 9 years ago

Ditto. Just water for me now, and coffee (black without sugar), in the non-alcoholic fluid intake category. :-)

paulcole• 9 years ago

This is what makes the internet so great. It's trivially easy to find an article that affirms whatever you want to believe about nutrition.

Want to drink soy sludge and live forever? Have I got a site for you! Looking to skip breakfast and lunch in the name of science, here you go! Eat no meat? Eat all meat? Both work!

Neliquat• 9 years ago

As someone who eats mainly keto/paleo as a prefrence/habit, and has vegan friends, the huge variaty of acceptable diet for humans is amazing. I even know people who eat food from bags and boxes, where the source caloric material is indecipherable, even with an ingredient list. Yet we all live well.

Baeocystin• 9 years ago

An awfully large % of the genetic difference between us and our nearest relatives are genes that relate to the gut. Being a true omnivore has its advantages!

hprotagonist• 9 years ago

my personal favorite is this paper. The reason you can always find evidence for your favorite is not just internet tribalism, it's that the problem is under defined and has many valid answers. dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182351

The weight of evidence strongly supports a theme of healthful eating while allowing for variations on that theme. A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention and is consistent with the salient components of seemingly distinct dietary approaches. Efforts to improve public health through diet are forestalled not for want of knowledge about the optimal feeding of Homo sapiens but for distractions associated with exaggerated claims, and our failure to convert what we reliably know into what we routinely do. Knowledge in this case is not, as of yet, power; would that it were so.

cholantesh5• 9 years ago

What's even better is that it's trivially easy to find rubrics for assessing the quality of information available to you. That there is a site that espouses your beliefs doesn't equate to all beliefs being equally valid.

std_throwaway• 9 years ago

I suppose the error lies in statements like

"Everybody should eat X."

"Y is making you Z."

where the whole of the population is treated as one.

Yet, we are different. Our metabolic balances differ. Some persons lack certain genes needed to process certain substances. Other persons are super efficient at that and need more of some substances.

"One size fits all." does not work in nutrition!

placeybordeaux4• 9 years ago

The technique that the researches performed is really suspect, however simply saying that they ran 100 tests neglects the fact the the only statistically significant results were found in the same grouping (artificially sweetened drinks & stroke).

Questioning the research is great, and pointing out that they used a scatter gun approach is totally valid, but I feel like the author lost a lot of position when they said:

"There’s only one small snag in this story; it isn’t true. Diet drinks aren’t that bad for you at all."

That's completely unsubstantiated. You've pointed out some potential problems, but not brought it home.

hueving4• 9 years ago

The onus for evidence is on people making the claim that diet drinks are bad for you.

Until there is some proof of that, it's safe to say that there is no evidence that diet drinks cause bad effects.

placeybordeaux4• 9 years ago

The claim that diet drinks aren't bad for you w.r.t. stroke appears to be as unproved as the claim that diet drinks are bad for you w.r.t. stroke.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

URSpider942• 9 years ago

Stripping away his sensationalist headline, the author is 100% right that this study proves basically nothing. The author does not control for either diabetes or BMI, two factors that are well known to increase risk for stroke, heart disease and dementia. Also, one might reasonably expect that someone who is obese or diabetic might in fact drink more diet soda than the general population. So, in fact, the results are well-explained by simple correlation, not causation.

That said, the fact that this study doesn't prove a significant connection between diet soda and these diseases, doesn't mean there isn't one. It's really hard to prove a negative. The best we can do is keep looking for a negative impact -- the longer we look and don't find one, the more likely that there isn't one.

duncan_bayne• 9 years ago

People have already spent a _lot_ of time and money looking, at least in the case of Aspartame.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy

FDA officials describe aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut."

spangry2• 9 years ago

Why the downvotes? This is true to an almost absurd degree. The following food / health standards agencies have found aspartame to be safe for human consumption:

- World Health Organisation

- US FDA

- British Food Standards Agency

- European Food Safety Authority

- Health Canada

- Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Authority

- And a whole bunch of peer reviewed, double-blind RCTs

Although, I should disclose that the Aspartame Illuminati pay me a commission whenever I make a positive mention of the additive :)

hueving4• 9 years ago

Sure, keep looking. But it's irritating how many people have the attitude that diet sodas are clearly bad for you, but that evidence is just being irritatingly elusive.

marze2• 9 years ago

Maybe someone can track down a reference to the study that proved the drinks aren't "killing you", as the headline says.

The study in question was well designed, with a large population. Study participants, randomly assigned to one of three groups, drank either diet soda exclusively, regular soda exclusively, or water. Participants were followed for 60 years, and all major major illnesses and deaths were carefully recorded. After 60 years, the three groups were found to have identical outcomes, which allowed the FDA to approve aspertame for general consumption.

oblib2• 9 years ago

"Stripping away his sensationalist headline, the author is 100% right that this study proves basically nothing"

That may be true, but his telling people "They are safe" is not proven true and "Drink away" is just piling stupid on top of a lie.

sudhirj• 9 years ago

The article is positing that there's enough research been done into diet soda sweeteners to claim that there are probably no adverse effects. This is enough to make a recommendation to use something. If everyone had to hedge their recommendations with "but we're not 100% sure it's safe", there wouldn't be recommendations any more.

danblick5• 9 years ago

Perhaps I'm just eccentric, but I avoid artificial sweeteners because I think they support behaviors that will ultimately lead to weight gain. (In particular I suspect we may subconsciously learn that sweet foods do not provide energy.)

On a related note... Science has led to many amazing things, but that doesn't mean it can realistically answer all questions. I think we should remember to be a bit humble and honest about which questions can be answered scientifically and which can't. Unfortunately, individual researchers and journalists both have incentives to make the most out of any result.

untangle• 9 years ago

In particular I suspect we may subconsciously learn that sweet foods do not provide energy.

What do you mean by this?

vmarsy2• 9 years ago

I think the parent is referring to this: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36772303

Artificial sweeteners can boost appetite by activating hunger pathways in the body, scientists have found in animals.
In fruit flies and mice, the mismatch between sweet taste and fewer calories sends the body into "feed me" mode, the journal Cell Metabolism reports. But UK nutritionists say this does not mean the same is true in humans.

nostalgiac2• 9 years ago

With all the artificial flavoring, there can end up being very little nutrients in the food. So if you're always having sweet but very low nutritional/caloric foods, there's a chance your body will subconsciously learn this.

danblick5• 9 years ago

Something like this:

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20130710/could-artifi...

"After a while, Swithers said, it's like the mouth keeps crying wolf, and the brain and gut stop listening. As a result, when real sugar and real calories come along, the body doesn't respond to them as strongly as it normally might. Calories don't end up making you feel as full as they should. They aren't as rewarding. So you don't get the signals that might stop you from eating when you should."

d23• 9 years ago

In particular I suspect we may subconsciously learn that sweet foods do not provide energy.

I've wondered about that myself. After dieting for a while and getting pretty good at it, I've noticed that my body absolutely seems to be able to detect the difference between actual carbs/sweets and the artificial ones. At least, I will start craving an energy bar with actual sugar in it as opposed to a protein bar that tastes sweet but is just full of artificial sweeteners.

hueving4• 9 years ago

Science has led to many amazing things, but that doesn't mean it can realistically answer all questions.

Careful, this attitude is essentially perpetuating that we should only use evidence when we feel like it.

If you refuse to consume something because you think it is detrimental to health but there is no evidence supporting it, just be honest and admit that it's a religious belief.

marze2• 9 years ago

Or you could call it being cautious.

danblick5• 9 years ago

I'm not suggesting we ignore evidence; I'm just saying we should be honest about what the evidence really shows and also honest about our inability to collect conclusive evidence at times.

I agree that mouse studies can show that megadoses of these sugar substitutes aren't lethal and probably won't cause cancer. But humans aren't mice and we don't live in lab cages, so animal studies don't answer the question I'm really interested in (~"will accepting artificial sweeteners into my diet improve my health?"). What would be the right experiment to answer that question? Has that experiment actually been performed, and would it be practical? Changes in human behavior might be hard to observe and quantify, and there are always practical limits to sample sizes.

Sometimes it's very, very hard to design a study that actually answers the question you're interested in, but neither the scientists nor anyone else really has an incentive to be humble about that. (Most scientists want to make their work seem impactful.)

nostalgiac2• 9 years ago

Science has led to many amazing things, but that doesn't mean it can realistically answer all questions.

Why? To me, that's what science IS. Providing the ability to answer any and all questions about our nature.

Jemaclus• 9 years ago

Well, all falsifiable questions...

danblick5• 9 years ago

It's been a while since I learned the scientific method per se, but I remember something about "repeatable, controlled experiments". There are many, many questions in life just can't be studied in a repeatable, controlled experiment. Macroeconomic policy comes to mind. (You might reason, "okay, I'm going to make two Earths, and in the US on planet 1 I'm going to implement policy A, then in the US on planet 2 I'm going to implement policy B, then I'm going to travel back in time to the present day so we have identical initial conditions and implement the better policy.") Anything single-shot. Anything involving a counter-factual ("if Hitler had never been born, would there have been a second world war?"). Anything where confounding variables cannot be eliminated or controlled. I could continue but I think the point is probably clear. :)

gumby2• 9 years ago

Not sure about the "subconsciously learn" part but you may be concerned to learn that the same "sweet" detectors you have on your tongue are also in your gut, and sign to the pancreas that some glucose is on the way so get cranking.

So I don't drink them out of concern for hyperinsulinemia, insulin resistance in the cells (DMT2) and related endocrine issues.

Please note that there are NO STUDIES of this as far as I know: my choice not to drink them is entirely based on first principles and the easy fact that it's not hard to avoid them. I am not a fan of crazy health fads ("Hey kids, let's wash out those ol' bags of toxins with a juice cleanse") but like I said there's basically no downside to avoiding those drinks anyway.

unpythonic• 9 years ago

This study seems to show that sugar-sweetened beverages are positively correlated with insulin resistance while diet soda does not have that same association:

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/146/12/2544.short

Sugar-Sweetened Beverage but Not Diet Soda Consumption Is Positively Associated with Progression of Insulin Resistance and Prediabetes

From the footnotes on the link given:

- Supported by the NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Framingham Heart Study (contract N01-HC-25195), the Boston University School of Medicine, and the USDA (USDA agreement 58-1950-0-014

- Author disclosures: J Ma, PF Jacques, JB Meigs, CS Fox, GT Rogers, CE Smith, A Hruby, E Saltzman, and NM McKeown, no conflicts of interest

chocolatemario• 9 years ago

It may support those behaviors under some circumstances. Of course, this is dependent on why you are using it. I've heard of bodybuilders who take it to the extreme and drink diet sodas like water. However, if usage is as benign as some artificial sweetener as opposed to sugar in your coffee, you are really only reaping the advantages of artificial sweetener.

GIFtheory• 9 years ago

There is still plenty of evidence that diet drinks are killing you, or at least making you fat: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161122193100.h....

cholantesh5• 9 years ago

One study of a small number of male mice is really not significant evidence. This is at best a pilot study.

littleweep2• 9 years ago

Anecdotal counter point: I have never seen a skinny person that regularly drinks diet cola

_m8fo• 9 years ago

funny how there's so much controversy to whether or not diet-poison is a lot worse than poison. fact is, virtually all beverages you can drink, except tea (barring a few variants) and a few types of black coffee are significantly worse than water.

drink water. trust me, i get it, sugar is good. but really, just drink water. your health will thank me.

copperx• 9 years ago

I get it. I know it. The kidneys rejoice when they get a stream of water. But I can't stand drinking just plain water all day; I need a strong flavor: soda, lemonade, Crystal Light, tea, coffee, beer, anything but tasteless water.

What can I do? force myself to avoid all of that? perhaps. I've tried but I always go back to flavored drinks.

nol13• 9 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZmSeBI6Bp4

placeybordeaux4• 9 years ago

I personally have two different types of drinking: one for flavor and one for hydration. If I feel dehydrated then I don't want anything but water, if I am not dehydrated but want to drink something to complement a meal or just as something to do then I choose other drinks.

lngnmn• 9 years ago

Crappy food produced for sale and quick profit.

To paraphrase - Processed Crap Is Killing You.

apatters• 9 years ago

It took me a long time to realize that most of the media's science reporting is scaremongering BS, and I know people who have gone their whole lives without realizing it.

It's stuff like this which makes me wonder if we really need the media in its current form. I'm inclined to say no and that's why I have no qualms about using an ad blocker. Maybe society would be better off if we just funded whatever shreds of that dinosaur industry are still valuable directly -- Glenn Greenwald could surely make a fine living with a Patreon account. Outside of very specific cases I would prefer my media outlet to be an aggregator of primary sources, perhaps with summaries. I do not want the mainstream press to publish any more bad science articles.

addicted• 9 years ago

Maybe I am not understanding it correctly, but it seems to me that an initial analysis does show a correlation between dementia and consumption of diet drinks, but once you adjust for factors that could cause dementia (such as diabetes) that correlation disappears.

But doesn't that imply a correlation. Eteeen diet drinks and diabetes? So maybe diet drinks don't cause dementia, but they do lead to diabetes, which then increases the odds of dementia. How do you conclude "drink away" from that?

That would also fit other studies that have shown that drinking diet soda instead of sugar soda leads to no weight loss, likely because people compensate by getting their sugars elsewhere. Which would match well with the idea that diet soda consumption correlates with diabetes.

szemet• 9 years ago

A causal relation definitely exists in the other way around: people with diabetes are encouraged to consume less sugar... This may explain large part of the correlation.

URSpider942• 9 years ago

That's an interesting idea, but there is no proof for this in the data, and in fact that's a common logical fallacy.

Let's assume a population that lives on an island that sits on the equator. One side of the island is polluted with radiation. It also features a kind of purple fruit that doesn't grow anywhere else and is not exported.

Now let's assume that the fruit contains a cumulative toxin that causes people to die very young of brain cancer.

A study without adequate controls might conclude:

-- Living near the equator causes brain cancer -- living on this island causes brain cancer -- radiation causes brain cancer -- eating purple fruit causes brain cancer -- radiation causes people to eat more purple fruit

Only one of these is true, but one could certainly invent reasons to explain nearly all of these correlations as causal.

In the case of this study, an alternate explanation that makes sense is: -- diabetes causes dementia -- diabetics are strongly encouraged to drink sugar-free soda to avoid sugar intake -- therefore, diet soda intake and dementia are linked only through their common root cause, diabetes

Diet Drinks are not killing you

Related Stories