Jump to content

Sorry!

This site is in read-only mode right now. You can browse all our old topics (and there's a lot of them) but you won't be able to add to them.

Suger free colas

Ben0

By Ben0
in Diet & nutrition

 Share

Recommended Posts

Ben0 Member

Ben0

Posted
Posted

Hi all, sorry if this has been done before, but it is something that has always confused me a little.

These zero cal colas, are they ok to drink ? Will drinking these hinder gains/ weightloss? I'm sure they are no good for you over all, but how bad? It surely tastes to good to be a guilt free treat lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dinahlady Senior member

Dinahlady

Posted
Posted

I think they are okay from time to time - but they going to be pretty hard on your digestion if you make them a habit. Especially if having other sugar free things or laxitive promoting things like gum or sugar free lollies. Carbonated drinks themselves are quite acidifing and other negetives from the carbonating process. 

Also, I've read that artifical sweetners can still impact your insulin levels even though you don't absorb all the calories. Different colas and sugar alcohols may be different though and this might be mainly sugar alcohols (not sure if diet colas have sugar alcohols).

Although your diet trend is going to make more of a difference to whats happening in your fat loss, lots of diet cola/diet cola several x per day, is definitely not going to be as good for your bodies overall efficiency as if you didnt have it, or possibly had a different "treat".

Theres more to dieting than just cutting calories and imo its better to just have something with nutritional value that you're going to benefit from - off the top of my head if it had to be a drink - a coffee with whole milk as you would be getting caffeine (if thats on your list) as well as a few carbs, protein, good fats and calcium, yeah you'll be getting insulin response - but tbh you probably would with a diet cola too. That may not be the best example for digestion it at least has some nutritional benefit. or say, another type of "treat" with some nutritional value, some carbs and fats for fuel, maybe a protein shake? Than just fully trying to have less calories, which im sure isn't 100% essential for your goals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nate225 Veteran member

nate225

Posted
Posted

If anyone's been really low BF or dieted really hard for a show you'll appreciate that often "sugar / calorie free" products are a godsend that can almost keep you sane. People love to get all conspiracy theory on them and say you shouldn't have them - but if you are on a prescibed diet for a show they beat the shit out of having an unplanned cheat or binge. It's a short term thing though, definitely wouldn't want to consume the volumes I do pre-comp all year round (I'd have meth mouth teeth in no time!).

Coke Zero bloat - saving one pre-comp bodybuilder at a time! *lol* 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Terrymundo Senior member

Terrymundo

Posted
Posted

don't you just FECKIN hate when people see you drinking artificially sweeten beverages and say "that stuff is bad for you" FUUUUUURR

I just want to say > look here you stupid peice of shit, do want to know whats bad for you!?!?!? diabetes, heart disease, obesity.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pseudonym Veteran member

Pseudonym

Posted
Posted

don't you just FECKIN hate when people see you drinking artificially sweeten beverages and say "that stuff is bad for you" FUUUUUURR

I just want to say > look here you stupid peice of shit, do want to know whats bad for you!?!?!? diabetes, heart disease, obesity.............

Hehehe... touche!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flex Senior member

Flex

Posted
Posted

don't you just FECKIN hate when people see you drinking artificially sweeten beverages and say "that stuff is bad for you" FUUUUUURR

I just want to say > look here you stupid peice of shit, do want to know whats bad for you!?!?!? diabetes, heart disease, obesity.............

June 15, 2009 (Washington, DC) — 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 — 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 — 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.

1x1.gif

"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.

 

Here's another one for you bar flys that like your diet coke with your booze:

Artificial sweeteners, caffeine, and alcohol intoxication in bar patrons.

Source

Department of Behavioral Science and Community Health, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Previous laboratory research on alcohol absorption has found that substitution of artificially sweetened alcohol mixers for sucrose-based mixers has a marked effect on the rate of gastric emptying, resulting in elevated blood alcohol concentrations. Studies conducted in natural drinking settings, such as bars, have indicated that caffeine ingestion while drinking is associated with higher levels of intoxication. To our knowledge, research has not examined the effects of alcohol mixers that contain both an artificial sweetener and caffeine, that is, diet cola. Therefore, we assessed the event-specific association between diet cola consumption and alcohol intoxication in bar patrons. We sought to determine whether putative increases in blood alcohol, produced by accelerated gastric emptying following diet cola consumption, as identified in the laboratory, also appear in a natural setting associated with impaired driving.

METHODS:

We conducted a secondary analysis of data from 2 nighttime field studies that collected anonymous information from 413 randomly selected bar patrons in 2008 and 2010. Data sets were merged and recoded to distinguish between energy drink, regular cola, diet cola, and noncaffeinated alcohol mixers.

RESULTS:

Caffeinated alcohol mixers were consumed by 33.9% of the patrons. Cola-caffeinated mixed drinks were much more popular than those mixed with energy drinks. A large majority of regular cola-caffeinated mixed drink consumers were men (75%), whereas diet cola-caffeinated mixed drink consumers were more likely to be women (57%). After adjusting for the number of drinks consumed and other potential confounders, number of diet cola mixed drinks had a significant association with patron intoxication (β = 0.233, p < 0.0001). Number of drinks mixed with regular (sucrose-sweetened) cola and energy drinks did not have significant associations with intoxication (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:

Caffeine's effect on intoxication may be most pronounced when mixers are artificially sweetened, that is, lack sucrose which slows the rate of gastric emptying of alcohol. Risks associated with on-premise drinking may be reduced by greater attention given to types of mixers, particularly diet colas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Terrymundo Senior member

Terrymundo

Posted
Posted

Damned if you do damned if you don't*unknw* I've seen alot on conflict research. This topic one of them. i didnt read the whole article but is stating a co-relation between artificial sweetener consumption and these health effects? or acutal causality? there is such a difference betweent the 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Popular Contributors

    Nobody has received reputation this week.

×
×
  • Create New...