Soda is bad for you! WARNING: (disgusting photos)

[pseudobrit]

My brain isn't working properly today. You'll have to give me an example of some sort, because I can't think of one.

Think of all the vitamins and minerals you consume. No burnable energy in the copper, iron or calcium. There are many compounds and foods that likewise pass completely undigested through the system. Fiber, for instance.

Well well well.. Where to start?

Coke (or any soft drink, diet or not) is so acidic from the phosphoric acid (!) in it. But diet drinks don't feed the plaque and bacteria like HFCS or sugar in nondiet does. So instead of bubble and dissolve your teeth out and feed the bacteria, you just dissolve your teeth out.

Another urban legend/ old wives tale. Acidic drinks will not dissolve your teeth unless you're fond of taking a huge sip and holding it in your mouth for hours without swallowing.

 

[Daveman Deluxe]

pseudobrit: You're half right about the "soda will not dissolve your teeth" thing. I read a study a couple of years ago (could not find a link, sorry) that suggested that brushing your teeth right after drinking a soda poses a risk greater than having the sugary soda all over your teeth. They suggested waiting about thirty minutes between drinking a soda and brushing your teeth.

 

[phungy]

pseudobrit: You're half right about the "soda will not dissolve your teeth" thing. I read a study a couple of years ago (could not find a link, sorry) that suggested that brushing your teeth right after drinking a soda poses a risk greater than having the sugary soda all over your teeth. They suggested waiting about thirty minutes between drinking a soda and brushing your teeth.

I agree with you Daveman. Studying dental, I have learned that brushing after eating/drinking anything acidic causes damage to the enamel, preventing it from growing back at a normal rate or even at all.

 

[Unspeaked]

No, it's not. It's been on the market and in widespread use for decades with no discernible health effects. If it caused cancer there would have been an explosion of it in the population by now that just hasn't happened.

It has only been in widespread use for a little over 20 years (since 1983), which means that we have only one generation that's grown up with it as a common ingredient in food, and even that generation is still rather young.

It was initially rejected by the FDA and only later gained approval (despite evidence of tumors in laboratory animals) when Donald Rumsfield (then CEO) reapplied for approval under the newly seated Reagan administration (Reagan being an old friend of Rumsfield).

The substance essentially breaks down into phenylalanine (not a huge deal unless you're a phenylketonurics), aspartic acid (known to cause damage to the brain in large doses) and methanol - which is highly toxic. It's been linked to several dozen medical symptoms, not the least of which are multiple sclerosis, lupus and fibromyalgia (in fact, cancer is rarely brought up as an aspartame argument by those in the know).

Growth in certain types of brain cancer and diabetes has grown by double digits since the first few months it was introduced to market (see here). Though this can no doubt be attributed to factors other than aspartame, it's certainly a consideration. Also startling, as many as 80% of all complaints the FDA receives are a result of aspartame consumption. Is that not a noticeable number?

The Air-force even issued a notice to all pilots that they are not to drink diet soda containing aspartame before flights.

Granted, there are several conflicting studies, but my point is not that aspartame is dangerous, it's that there's no conclusive evidence either way as of yet.

 

[pseudobrit]

It has only been in widespread use for a little over 20 years (since 1983), which means that we have only one generation that's grown up with it as a common ingredient in food, and even that generation is still rather young.

It was initially rejected by the FDA and only later gained approval (despite evidence of tumors in laboratory animals) when Donald Rumsfield (then CEO) reapplied for approval under the newly seated Reagan administration (Reagan being an old friend of Rumsfield).

The substance essentially breaks down into phenylalanine (not a huge deal unless you're a phenylketonurics), aspartic acid (known to cause damage to the brain in large doses) and methanol - which is highly toxic. It's been linked to several dozen medical symptoms, not the least of which are multiple sclerosis, lupus and fibromyalgia (in fact, cancer is rarely brought up as an aspartame argument by those in the know).

Growth in certain types of brain cancer and diabetes has grown by double digits since the first few months it was introduced to market (see here). Though this can no doubt be attributed to factors other than aspartame, it's certainly a consideration. Also startling, as many as 80% of all complaints the FDA receives are a result of aspartame consumption. Is that not a noticeable number?

The Air-force even issued a notice to all pilots that they are not to drink diet soda containing aspartame before flights.

Granted, there are several conflicting studies, but my point is not that aspartame is dangerous, it's that there's no conclusive evidence either way as of yet.

You could have been a little less selective with your information and just linked to the entire wikipedia articles from which you're obviously cherry-picking these tidbits.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame

There's a whole world of ******** out there with anti-food nonsense and it irritates me. Everything from fertilizer to pesticides to processing are being assailed as carcinogenic and toxic with nothing more than half truths, conventional wisdom and conspiracy theories. But it doesn't stop people mindlessly absorbing and regurgitating these sensational warnings as gospel.

 

[Abstract]

Think of all the vitamins and minerals you consume. No burnable energy in the copper, iron or calcium. There are many compounds and foods that likewise pass completely undigested through the system. Fiber, for instance.

Yes, I get those vitamins and minerals, but I get it from food that usually contains energy. It's not like I take vitamin tablets, which don't count as a food anyway.

 

[Fiveos22]

Let's just set the facts and the hot wind apart, shall we?

Type I Diabetes Mellitus - 10-20% of DM

Typically referred to as "juvenile" diabetes, commonly displays before the age of 30. It is characterized by autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells (insulin producing cells) as is evidenced by lymphocytes and inflammatory cells attacking Islets. It has a moderate genetic component that in most cases is traced back to an genetic immune mutation (changes in HLA-DR3-4). Type I is an absolute deficit of insulin, thus it is also known as insulin-dependent DM (IDDM) and therapy often is insulin replacement.

Type II Diabetes Mellitus - 80-90% of DM (the topic of this thread)

Typically referred to as "insulin resistant" diabetes, commonly appears after the age of 40. However, the growing obesity epidemic is the most likely cause of the increased Type II incidence in adolescents and young adults. Type II DM is due to decreased glucose tolerance, i.e. the insulin no longer causes glucose uptake or its other anabolic effects. This can be due to many mechanisms (insulin receptor fatigue, poor Beta cell insulin synthesis/release, etc.) but the chronic complications are the same:

Neuropathy (sensory loss in distal appendages),
Retinopathy (diabetic blindness),
Nephropathy,
Cardiovascular disease (atherosclerosis, arteriosclerosis, stroke risk),
Peripheral vascular disease,
Lower extremity amputations

There is a very strong genetic component to Type II diabetes involving multiple genes. These genes may be related to obesity, hunger regulation, insulin sensitivity, changes in insulin production over time...and so on. However, by the same token, aging is a genetic factor controlled by many genes that allow one man to run a marathon at 100 years old and another man look like a living corpse at age 55. But saying that it is genetic does not mean that there is also a significant environmental component to diabetes, like over-eating, eating sweets and candy, and drinking soda all the time. This is reflected in the fact that the number #1 treatment for Type II diabetes is exercise and diet modification. Sure it may not reset the diabetes back to day 1, but it will slow the progression of the disease and help the body compensate for the changes that are taking place.

The fact is that Type II DM is not a fully understood disease (like almost all diseases here at the advent of the molecular genetic age) but it is on the increase especially in populations that historically do not carry risk factors for this condition...children and youth. The search for answers must traverse all aspects of the disease including dietary and patient lifestyle choices so that good treatment can be given.

 

[Unspeaked]

There's a whole world of ******** out there with anti-food nonsense and it irritates me. Everything from fertilizer to pesticides to processing are being assailed as carcinogenic and toxic with nothing more than half truths, conventional wisdom and conspiracy theories. But it doesn't stop people mindlessly absorbing and regurgitating these sensational warnings as gospel.

You're right, there's far too many warnings about far too many things; but as someone mentioned in the "Does the iPhone cause brain cancer?" thread earlier today, we're all like guinea pigs at the moment with so many new food stuffs, technologies, chemicals and such in our environments. We won't know until down the line what is and isn't bad for us (just as in the past, people have done things that seem stupid to us today).

Of course, I drink diet soda and use cell phones and eat irradiated food, but I also try to use common sense and moderation. It's hard to live a normal life without exposing yourself to these things, so why lose sleep over them?

 

[pseudobrit]

You're right, there's far too many warnings about far too many things; but as someone mentioned in the "Does the iPhone cause brain cancer?" thread earlier today, we're all like guinea pigs at the moment with so many new food stuffs, technologies, chemicals and such in our environments. We won't know until down the line what is and isn't bad for us (just as in the past, people have done things that seem stupid to us today).

Of course, I drink diet soda and use cell phones and eat irradiated food, but I also try to use common sense and moderation. It's hard to live a normal life without exposing yourself to these things, so why lose sleep over them?

Indeed. What is worth losing sleep over are the hundreds of millions who cannot afford to fret about whether newer technologies will give them cancer in 30 years because they wouldn't survive another 30 days without the food grown with those technologies. On the other end of the spectrum, millions of overfed people in the industrialized world could benefit from artificial sweeteners and processing techniques cutting their calorie and sugar intake and reducing the potential for weight related health problems.

These are wonderful and exciting new creations and applications and while there's nothing wrong with being cautious, we should at least embrace the concept instead of allowing fearmongers to convince us that anything "unnatural" is inherently deleterious to our bodies.

 

[j3nsen]

I used to live off of soda for a while there, but the last few months it has been all water and green tea (sometimes i sneak in an occasional sweet tea). I swear now I couldn't drink soda if I wanted to, it tastes horrible to me now

 

[klymr]

Who do you know in Utah? I notice your can is printed with a "coupon" for Lagoon. Do they really have those cans in CA?