As mentioned here on SoylentNews, there is mounting evidence that artificial sweeteners may disrupt the body’s ability to regulate blood sugar, causing metabolic changes that can be a precursor to diabetes, and the growing girth of the average American suggests the switch to artificial sweetener has failed to meet the diet promises made.
Soft drink giants Pepsi and Coca-Cola have been working for the last six years on finding another solution for a low- or no-calorie drink, and both have settled on Stevia, because it is claimed to be 100% natural (it comes from a plant) and has zero calories.
Apparently, the soda bottlers have noticed declining sales of these zero calorie drinks for the last 9 years, with a 7% drop last year alone. It seems quite probable that both have been ready with their formulas for some time. Since the problems with artificial sweeteners received wide press coverage, they have both decided to pounce.
According to CNBC.com Pepsi will release "Pepsi True", and Coke will release "Coca Cola Life " in the coming month and both have companies are combining Stevia with regular sugar for what they are calling an all naturally sweetened drink, with reduced calories.
Not being too sure of their new product, both are taking cautious marketing steps: Pepsi will initially sell only through Amazon.com, and Coke is only at Fresh Market stores in the US after trials in south America.
Unlike the zero calorie artificial sweeteners, the sugar/Stevia blend will still have around 60% of the calories of a regular soft drink. But it remains to be seen if consumers seeking natural and healthy products will find Pepsi True and Coca-Cola Life appealing. Reduced calorie soft drinks have not done well in the past, predominantly due to the after-taste of prior sweeteners.
Related Stories
Over ten years ago, a girlfriend I had at the time said something to me that I thought was as crazy as she was. She told me that I ought to stop using artificial sweeteners and stop drinking diet sodas because they can actually cause diabetes. Well, she was crazy in other ways but she may have been right in this area. The New York Times published an article that points out that artificial sweeteners may be very bad for many of us.
Artificial sweeteners may disrupt the body’s ability to regulate blood sugar, causing metabolic changes that can be a precursor to diabetes, researchers are reporting.
The scientists performed a multitude of experiments, mostly on mice, to back up their assertion that the sweeteners alter the microbiome, the population of bacteria that is in the digestive system.
The different mix of microbes, the researchers contend, changes the metabolism of glucose, causing levels to rise higher after eating and to decline more slowly than they otherwise would.[One researcher] noted that many conditions, including obesity and diabetes, had been linked to changes in the microbiome. “What the study suggests,” she said, “is we should step back and reassess our extensive use of artificial sweeteners.”
Previous studies on the health effects of artificial sweeteners have come to conflicting and confusing findings. Some found that they were associated with weight loss; others found the exact opposite, that people who drank diet soda actually weighed more.
Some found a correlation between artificial sweeteners and diabetes, but those findings were not entirely convincing: Those who switch to the products may already be overweight and prone to the disease.
The Nature article itself is paywalled, but its abstract and figures are available on-line.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday October 03 2014, @09:59PM
If diet beverages trigger metabolic reactions similar to regular sugar, why would Stevia be any different? You need less of it to achieve the same sweetness, but isn't the magnitude of the sweetness tasted (taste receptors activated) what causes the health problems?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Friday October 03 2014, @10:06PM
Stevia alone wouldn't be different. (Probably).
The key takeaway is they are going back to sugar (but less sugar), by adding stevia to attain the same level of sweetness that people have become used to. (hooked on).
Also you may have misinterpreted what the first linked article is saying.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Friday October 03 2014, @11:51PM
The odd thing is that most people are used to the level of sweetness that's in HFCS sodas, which is a small fraction of the level found in the old sugar-based formula. For all of the hype and raving from folks that think the "retro" version is awesome, I know quite a few people in their mid-late 30s & younger that actually find it unappealing or even a bit nauseating. It will be interesting to see which version Coke Life is really intended to mimic, and which generation it's marketed towards.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Saturday October 04 2014, @03:14AM
I would love it if they just lowered the sugar levels. I make my own 7up-ish drink by taking 2 teaspoons of sugar which I dissolve in maybe two tablespoons of hot water, add some lemon juice and lime juice, then fill up with soda water. It's really refreshing and at 32 calories, hardly a big deal. Plus, since it isn't the thick syrupy glop that is normal soda, it actually quenches my thirst -- after some regular soda though, I feel like I need a glass of water to wash it down.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday October 04 2014, @08:24PM
Have you ever thought about using simple syrup instead of granulated sugar? They are the same ting just the syrup is already in a liquid state so you don't have to use hot water when you make your beverage. Effectively its an unflavored Torrino syrup that they put in your coffee or Italian soda at Starbucks.
I use a rinsed out Torrino bottle and a pump for it from BevMo for just about everything that I add sugar to, coffee, teas, Chai, etc.. And making a flavored syrup is a snap, just search online for "simple syrup" and "Flavored simple syrup"
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday October 05 2014, @06:32AM
What precisely is in this simple syrup?
There is no exact formula for that, and half the time the commercial versions are high fructose corn syrup.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by pendorbound on Monday October 06 2014, @02:53PM
To make simple syrup:
Bring a small quantity (a cup perhaps) of water to a boil. Slowly add sugar, stirring constantly, until no more will dissolve in the water. Allow to cool, strain out any undissolved or recrystalized sugar with a coffee filter, and keep refrigerated.
When sweetening beverages, use approximately the same amount by volume of simple syrup that you would have used of granulated sugar.
(Score: 3, Informative) by SlimmPickens on Friday October 03 2014, @10:43PM
If diet beverages trigger metabolic reactions similar to regular sugar, why would Stevia be any different? You need less of it to achieve the same sweetness, but isn't the magnitude of the sweetness tasted (taste receptors activated) what causes the health problems?
I don't think we really know why it happens. That previous article we discussed linked it to the makeup of gut bacteria. I wouldn't be surprised if the taste does affect the way the body processes sugar though, I know that the body manufactures specific enzymes to process certain foods like eggs, and then breaks them down again as soon as that food is digested.
The thing is, no other sugar tastes as good as sucrose. It seems a lot more sensible to simply not drink as much strongly flavoured bitter drinks like cola that require ridiculous amounts of sugar to balance the flavour. I mainly drink flavoured ice tea with my lunch (we have fancy flavours like peach, daiquiri, mojito) and either beer or scotch with ginger beer when I'm drinking. They still have a variety of and plenty of sugars, but nowhere near as much as cola in terms of energy.
One the topic of balancing flavour, it's hard to believe because we're so greedy, but the nose actually prefers things in low concentrations. I read about it years ago in Heston Blumenthal book but it struck home when I was eating a tomato soup in Inle Lake, Burma (awesome food, Shan people, corner of Burma, Thailand and China). This tomato soup was actually watered down, not concentrated, with the only other ingredients being basil, a few slivers of onion and a tiny amount of fish sauce (the natural companion of tomato and onion). This is where I learned that nothing matters more than balance, and my cooking has been the better for it ever since.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday October 03 2014, @11:01PM
You hit the nail on the head. Moderation.
I steadfastly refuse any kind of artificial sweetener. If I want a Coke or Pepsi, I can get the real stuff now.
The artificial sweetener lines are not popular at all with the South American crowd. Nearly every ethnic food market I walk into has had Coca Cola Americano which is pure sugar and no HFS GMO engineered crap.
I drink maybe 5-8 pops a month now because it's no longer full of chemicals and unhealthy crap, but also because it actually tastes like I remember it as a kid again. Nice glass container, almost ice cold.
We can have the really good tasting stuff. We can't just drink it as a replacement for water.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Leebert on Saturday October 04 2014, @12:01AM
Wow. How did they manage to create a drink without chemicals in it? You'd think it'd at LEAST have water.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday October 04 2014, @12:36AM
The artificial sweetener lines are not popular at all with the South American crowd. Nearly every ethnic food market I walk into has had Coca Cola Americano which is pure sugar and no HFS GMO engineered crap.
Here in North America Coca Cola Mexicana is all the rage, because it uses nothing but pure cane sugar as a sweetener. HFCS is not allowed in Mexican products. (They will import foods with it, but not manufacture foods with it. This wasn't any stroke of genius on their part, they were just trying to support their Sugar Cane industry. You can find it in most towns in the US with a significant Mexican population.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday October 04 2014, @03:16AM
You can find all the way up the border of Canada on the Pacific coast.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday October 03 2014, @11:38PM
I forgot about our friend the microbiome [wikipedia.org].
Stay neutral, my friends.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Friday October 03 2014, @10:08PM
I'm not happy about the Stevia trend. It's supposed to be healthy unlike Splenda etc., but since Glaceau switched Vitaminwater to a Stevia blend I have been weaning myself off of it. I used to get a burst of energy from it; the hydration metabolized faster than straight H2O. But then they changed it (and the label design, slightly), and I thought I was going nuts because it didn't work the same, now it makes me more lethargic rather than less. Finally read the label and figured out what changed; now I can say I'm no longer interested in either Stevia or Vitaminwater. All because they want to lower calorie count to sound healthier.
Damn corporate meddling. If I wanted healthier I would drink the Vitaminwater Zero. Or, you know, actual water. Why must companies ruin their own proven products?
Back to brewing tea, I guess.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday October 03 2014, @10:32PM
I was actually going to suggest iced tea until I got to the bottom of your post.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Noldir on Saturday October 04 2014, @08:53AM
It does sound like you're coming down from a sugar "addiction" if no sugar makes you feel this lethargic.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday October 04 2014, @11:06AM
What was in this Vitaminwater before the meddled with it? ie what made the body absorb H20 so fast?
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Friday October 03 2014, @10:39PM
I absolutely hate the taste of every artificial sweetener I've tried. It doesn't really taste sweet, and it usually leaves a crappy, chemical-y aftertaste. I hate it. Like if I had a time machine and had to make a choice between stopping the Holocaust and preventing artificial sweeteners, I'd really have to think about it. I'd probably make the right choice, but seriously, that shit tastes nasty.
I may drink too much soda, but all those calories are real, either cane sugar or HFCS (I can taste the difference, but it's like Pepsi and Coke - neither tastes "worse" to me, just different).
Somehow, I stay relatively normal-weight. It's not through exercise (the most I get is walking three blocks to the store, couple times a week), and not through strict dieting (I eat fast food fairly often). Instead, it's just that... after drinking a liter of Code Red during the day, I'm not hungry for a big dinner. Frequently, my lunch is a footlong sub sandwich - and my dinner is the six inches I didn't eat for lunch. I'm just not hungry for a full one at lunch OR at dinner.
So yeah, I think there is something to the theory of diet sodas not really helping. My body tastes the unholy amount of sugar I'm drinking, and notices that I sit on my ass for 23 hours a day, and cuts down on the hunger to keep me from becoming a human Twinkie.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday October 04 2014, @12:12AM
A back-of-an-envelope calculation indicates that preventing artificial sweeteners is the more worthy cause by more than a factor of six. If we assume that the Holocaust caused six million people to have their lives shortened by an average of 40 years, then 240 million person years were lost. However, if we assume that artificial sweeteners have caused BMI to increase by five units and that this has caused one billion people to have a reduced life expectancy of 1.5 years, then 1.5 billion person years have been lost. From my experience, it is also likely that an overweight/obese person who dies early has reduced quality of life before they do so.
Regarding your exclusive consumption of sucrose and high fructose corn syrup drinks in relation to decreased food consumption, I am circuitously reminded of a long conversation with an ex-housemate regarding random intermittent re-inforcement through tipping (for the purpose of obtaining the best quality service). Rather than tipping evenly 100% of the time, it is far more effective to tip the same total amount but only tip generously 31% of the time. If intermittent re-inforcement applies with drinks, obesity would be most prevalent in people who consume high calorie drinks 31% of the time. The mechanism for this would be the consumption of extra calories to cover any random shortfalls. The solution would be not alternating between high calorie and low calorie drinks.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 04 2014, @12:50AM
> if we assume that artificial sweeteners have caused BMI to increase by five units
We can make an argument for anything if we are free to just make up random numbers.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday October 04 2014, @01:31AM
If you watch:-
then you'll understand that I've chosen conservative figures. And if you disagree with that, the argument remains valid even if the figures are scaled down by a factor of five.
1702845791×2
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Saturday October 04 2014, @11:15AM
"Around the world, obesity levels are rising. More people are now overweight than undernourished. Two thirds of British adults are overweight and one in four of us is classified as obese. In the first of this three-part series, Jacques Peretti traces those responsible for revolutionising our eating habits, to find out how decisions made in America 40 years ago influence the way we eat now.
Peretti travels to America to investigate the story of high-fructose corn syrup. The sweetener was championed in the US in the 1970s by Richard Nixon's agriculture secretary Earl Butz to make use of the excess corn grown by farmers. Cheaper and sweeter than sugar, it soon found its way into almost all processed foods and soft drinks. HFCS is not only sweeter than sugar, it also interferes with leptin, the hormone that controls appetite, so once you start eating or drinking it, you don't know when to stop.
Endocrinologist Robert Lustig was one of the first to recognise the dangers of HFCS but his findings were discredited at the time. Meanwhile a US Congress report blamed fat, not sugar, for the disturbing rise in cardio-vascular disease and the food industry responded with ranges of 'low fat', 'heart healthy' products in which the fat was removed - but the substitute was yet more sugar.
Meanwhile, in 1970s Britain, food manufacturers used advertising campaigns to promote the idea of snacking between meals. Outside the home, fast food chains offered clean, bright premises with tempting burgers cooked and served with a very un-British zeal and efficiency. Twenty years after the arrival of McDonalds, the number of fast food outlets in Britain had quadrupled."
Classic corporate crime. Just compare with cigarettes, asbestos, etc. Find cheap shit to sell with margin. Scientist find out the side effects. Silence scientist. Sell more..
Now you know that high-fructose corn syrup is at least something to avoid like the plague..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 04 2014, @06:16PM
> If you watch:-
Who the fuck is going to watch SEVEN FUCKING HOURS of television just to see if you are twisting the facts to suit your point of view or not?
That sort of misdirection is exactly the kind of debate tactic one expects from someone who knows they are wrong. It is the equivalent of, "go google it!" No one is going to watch the equivalent of 4 movies to prove your argument for you and you know they won't. That's a way to avoid answering the question rather than inform the discussion.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by black6host on Saturday October 04 2014, @01:15AM
I know this a site for nerds but doesn't mean we, as a collective group, are uncaring.
The problem with your "back of the envelop" calculation is that those using artificial sweetners, had/have a choice. That's huge. Those who suffered through the Holocaust didn't twist off a cap and say "give me some of that" and the fact that you're turning it into a numbers thing borders on offensive at worst. Perhaps an opportunity to look and think about what you just wrote could be the best thing that might happen. Just my 2 cents.
I don't have any mod points, and if I did I wouldn't mod you down. We are allowed to disagree. In fact I'd rather have discourse where, perhaps, somebody may walk away a bit richer in the process.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cafebabe on Saturday October 04 2014, @01:49AM
I took a contentious comparison and quantified both sides. Both quantifications under-represent their respective situations. Genocide is bad and should not be forgotten. However, it should not take precedent over the significantly more pressing situation where regulatory capture, dubious marketing, food subsidies and obscene portions create an environment where, in aggregate, it is impossible for people to not be overweight. Sugar is arguably addictive [soylentnews.org] and we have an environment where, in aggregate, it is far too easy to be an addict or relapse into addiction.
1702845791×2
(Score: 3, Insightful) by black6host on Saturday October 04 2014, @02:03AM
Well, I'll acknowledge that your position and expression of it was thought out. In fact I give you credit for that. That's something I can respect. Again, we may differ on what and how something was presented. But I'll take that any day over a flame war or subsequent troll fest. Thank you for that.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tathra on Saturday October 04 2014, @02:49PM
stevia is the only non-sugar sweetener i've come across that doesn't taste like ass; i dont remember it even having a disgusting aftertaste like all the artificial sweeteners do. if you have any diabetic friends, ask them if they've tried Truvia, and if you can try some if they have any.
(Score: 1) by darnkitten on Saturday October 04 2014, @11:52PM
I find stevia tastes OK, but has an unpleasant enough aftertaste for me that the anticipation of it spoils the soda experience. HFCS also has an unpleasant aftertaste, but not as intense--I can drink it occasionally, usually when I'm sampling an unfamiliar label. Cane sugar doesn't seem to have an aftertaste to me, though I wonder if that was the sweetener used when I was a child, and therefore the "natural" flavour to my tongue.. Unfortunately, cane sugar sodas are rarely available here in rural Montana. I don't notice the taste of the sweeteners in Diet Coke/Pepsi any longer, though I can still tell (after 20 years) how long a Diet Coke fountain machine has been uncleaned just from the taste. *shudder*
I guess that's why there are so many varieties out there: everyone's taste is different.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Leebert on Friday October 03 2014, @10:39PM
Well now I'm sold. "Natural" and from a plant? That's gotta be pure as the driven snow. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to get back to my safe, healthy, all-natural, and "organic" Hemlock salad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 03 2014, @11:06PM
I too was disgusted by this marketing for idiots. TFS contained the word natural no less than 3 times and also once the word artificial for good measure...
1) Like parent suggested, the things you get from nature are not all good for you.
2) The process the stevia shits goes through is most certainly very industrial and highly involved...
The "natural" marketing hoax is not to be confused with organic farming which does have a specific definition.
(Score: 3, Funny) by cafebabe on Saturday October 04 2014, @12:18AM
Oh, you hemlock traditionalists! Is speedballing heroin from the natural opuim poppy plant and cocaine from the natural coca plant is too fancy for you?
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday October 04 2014, @02:31PM
heroin isn't natural (requires refluxing morphine with acetic anhydride), but morphine and codeine are, and so is khat, mescaline, dmt, shrooms, salvia, ephedrine, marijuana, ibogaine, scopalamine (datura/belladonna), tobacco... i suppose alcohol would count as natural too since fermentation occurs on its own.
(Score: 1) by KilroySmith on Friday October 03 2014, @10:39PM
after watching the final episode of Breaking Bad.
I just can't do it.
(Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Friday October 03 2014, @10:46PM
Sugar is metabolized by the liver in a process much the same as alcohol, with similar metabolic results -- people with a six-pack-a-day habit of Coke have the same beer belly as people with a six-pack-a-day habit of beer. Alcohol also gets metabolized in the brain whilst sugar (mostly) doesn't, but that's about the extent of the significant-to-you metabolic differences.
Other sweeteners also have to get metabolized by the liver, so it's not at all surprising that they, too, result in typical byproducts of liver metabolism, especially including elevated blood lipids.
If you want to minimize your risk for developing the metabolic syndrome, limit your intake of sweets to that which was typical before the start of the sugar triangle trade and the coincident rise in the metabolic syndrome. That would be about ten pounds of sugar (in all forms, including honey and maple and anything else) per year, which works out to about a tablespoon (15 g) per day, or a teaspoon per meal. Note that a single can of Coke has about a quarter cup / four tablespoons, or almost a week's worth of sugar. Also note that even ketchup and salad dressings are often 30% or more sugar.
A good strategy to kick the sugar habit is to start your meals with a salad (and watch the dressing!), and then eat textbook-approved portions of minimally-processed proteins, fats, and carbohydrates: roughly, protein about the size of your palm, a quarter cup of grain before cooking, and a pat of butter / splash of oil each. If you're still hungry after that -- and you assuredly will be if you're addicted to sugar -- then stuff yourself silly with all the fresh veggies you can eat: cabbage, celery, carrots, sugar snap peas, broccoli, whatever you like or at least can tolerate. If necessary, think of the veggies not as food you enjoy (though all are delicious when quality produce freshly picked) but rather as medicine whose purpose is to stifle your food cravings. And if you're still hungry after eating so much fresh veggies you couldn't possibly fit another in your mouth, go ahead and move on to as much fresh whole fruit as you care to eat. Fresh and whole, not juiced (especially not juiced!) or canned or cooked, but fresh: apples, orange segments, pomegranate pips, whatever. That will satiate your sweet tooth -- but leave it until after you've stuffed yourself on the veggies.
Eating like this ensures first that you're getting a balanced diet rather than starving yourself; starvation is bad and not psychologically sustainable. It's also harmless; you're not going to get into trouble by eating too many radishes in addition to healthy modest portions of regular foods. And you'll naturally transition to getting fuller sooner and sooner and won't have to eat so many veggies to stuff yourself before you feel full.
Combine this with the bodyweight exercises I mentioned in the previous post, and you've got an affordable, simple, and easy way to return to health, provided you have the self-discipline to grab some celery sticks instead of a candy bar and spend half an hour a few times a week exercising whilst watching your favorite TV show.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 03 2014, @11:07PM
If God had wanted us to eat vegetables, He would've made them taste like sugar or meat, and not like crap.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 04 2014, @02:35PM
I don't know about you, but I'm glad as fuck that vegetables don't taste gross like meat.
Everyone has different tastes; lots of vegetables are delicious with less preparation than required to make meat even edible.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 03 2014, @11:58PM
> Other sweeteners also have to get metabolized by the liver,
False.
For example, sucralose passes through the body nearly undigested. It is also at least 300x more sweet than sugar, so that's at least 300x less of it that would need to be metabolized if the human body really could process it.
(Score: 1) by Mesa Mike on Saturday October 04 2014, @02:41AM
> It is also at least 300x more sweet than sugar
That's subjective. The same is claimed of Stevia.
To me, both are sweet up to a certain point where adding more doesn't increase the sweetness, only the yuckiness of whatever else it tastes like. Unfortunately, that certain point isn't sweet enough for me.
I actually prefer to mix my artificial sweeteners, since (to me) no one in particular tastes has the full nuance of sweetness I like. 1 pink packet to 2 blue packets works for me. Sometimes I'll throw in a green packet too. The yellow packets just don't do anything for me.
Yes, I know, the concoction is horrifying, and I'll probably die next week from ingesting that stuff...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 04 2014, @05:00AM
>> It is also at least 300x more sweet than sugar
>
> That's subjective. The same is claimed of Stevia.
(1) Subjective or not, what matters is the ratio in which it is used in the food industry and that is a minimum of 300x - some recipes go as as much as 1000x.
(2) No the same is not claimed of stevia. Ultra-refined stevia is claimed to be at most 300x, sucrolose is a minimum of 300x.
> 1 pink packet to 2 blue packets works for me.
You can't judge based on the single-serving packets of sweetener because they are cut with dextrose to make them have the same volume as table sugar regardless of what sweetener is actually used.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 06 2014, @03:19AM
Does not compute
(Score: 2, Funny) by EETech1 on Saturday October 04 2014, @03:40AM
"you're not going to get into trouble by eating too many radishes"
You don't have to sleep next to me after...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 04 2014, @04:37AM
Beer consumption does not cause weight loss. This myth was overturned in the 2003 Czech study and confirmed by a number of follow-up studies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 04 2014, @06:07AM
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Friday October 03 2014, @11:18PM
It came from a plant and is thus all natural and healthy. Except for the plethora of drugs that also come from plants that are taboo and illegal. This sweetener health hysteria is just getting pathetic at this point. The only thing artificial sweetener is good for is mixing diet coke with rum because the totally-not-sugar taste for some reason enhances the taste of the rum. Otherwise it feels like you're coating your mouth with something that has the texture of cotton and the taste of plastic. Also the average "girth" (it's okay, you can call us fat idiots. I usually hate US stereotypes but people clearly need the motivation to not be stupid and fat right now) of Americans is at least partly because of the dishonest at best marketing of the health benefit of these things in the same vein as the "0% trans fat" crap. I'm not a diet scientist and just know enough to keep myself at least somewhat fit but as far as I'm aware the issue isn't calories, it's the simple carbohydrates that don't get burned off and thus stored as fat. But I guess they're not quite trashy enough (yet) to try to advertise things like "0% carbohydrates".
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday October 03 2014, @11:31PM
I think one of the reasons why diet sodas may be causing problems is that they are very, very sweet. They contain a lot of artificial sweetener. However, when I drink tea I don't put a lot of nutrasweet/splenda/stevia into it because it's not necessary. I wonder if the same problems would exist if sweeteners were taken in on in that kind of moderation.
On the subject of stevia-sweetened sodas, I shall never drink them because I do not want the sugar. I am not a diabetic (by the grace of God); I just don't want that sugar/corn syrup. I find that diet sodas are quite refreshing on their own.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 04 2014, @12:04AM
> drink tea I don't put a lot of nutrasweet/splenda/stevia into it because it's not necessary.
If you make your own soda (which is super cheap to do if you DIY instead of going with something like a sodastream machine) then it takes roughly half as much sugar to get roughly the same taste levels as bottled soda. Another benefit of home-made soda is you can gradually reduce the amount of sugar. I'm down to about 15% of bottled soda for some flavors.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday October 04 2014, @05:30AM
And, usually, cold. The sweet taste is greatly intensified [foodnavigator.com] at higher temperature (try a melt icecream, you'll probably find it much too sweet to eat)
Which reminds me: you know the Arabs and Indians drink hot tea and eat hot-spicy food to cool down? Over 1 billion people can't be wrong, especially when they're doing it for centuries.
Turns out that the capsaicin receptor [wikipedia.org] is also triggered by higher temperatures, so the brain will react by ordering a serve of sweat from the body (yeah, I know: don't anthropomorphise nature, it hates when you do it).
So, next time you what to cool down with a soda... consider having a Carolina Reaper [guinnessworldrecords.com] instead - don't forget to wear latex gloves [youtube.com] if you need to use your hands for the next couple of days [australiangeographic.com.au] (or just go with 4 drops of capsaicin infused oil [youtube.com]; if you manage to find a 96% fat-free compound, better for your BMI - grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday October 04 2014, @08:52PM
Interesting, but I did know that when you eat spicy things you sweat. I've experienced that plenty of times as a lover of spicy Indian/Pakistani food. But I suspect that sweat response would not be very useful in the Carolinas, a place where you wish you were in Hell during the humid summer months.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Friday October 03 2014, @11:48PM
Stevia is my name now the the operation is complete.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 04 2014, @12:16AM
Normally a female would choose a more male sounding name like Steve when a fake penis is sewn onto her groin.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by meisterister on Saturday October 04 2014, @02:25AM
It is very sad to me that we have added such connotations to words when there is absolutely no reason to do so. Is arsenic "all-natural"? Absolutely! Will it still kill you? Yes! What about the polio vaccine? It used "chemicals" and isn't "natural" or "homemade", but it is easily in the top 10 greatest medical advances. Anyone who doesn't enjoy being slowly killed while watching their muscles deteriorate would probably agree.
Fun thing to try: Refer to water/some "organic" food as a chemical/set of chemicals and watch people do a double take.
Another fun thing to try: Refer to some processed food as all-organic and watch people with no background in chemistry try to refute you.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday October 04 2014, @12:14PM
Dihydrogen monoxide is used in nuclear power stations, is the major component of acid rain [wikipedia.org] and has been found in pre-cancerous lesions [dhmo.org].
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 04 2014, @02:42PM
Since you're both using different (but correct) definitions for the same word, you're both right, but you're the only one being a dick about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 04 2014, @05:10PM
A 2 liter of cola is fat free :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 04 2014, @02:49AM
How about just putting less fuckin sugar in it. Start with 90% and reduce by 5% so people can get their palette to the new level of sugar over time, they won't taste the fuckin difference.
Snapple has 3-4 new flavors that have 80 calories per bottle, which is less than half in most cases. I buy them but I am not as used to the low sugar yet, and end up struggling to finish the bottle.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by kaszz on Saturday October 04 2014, @11:25AM
Sugar makes people buy which equals profit. We can't have anything that compromise that..