Is diet pop better for you than regular pop?!
Me and my cousin are trying to figure out if diet or regular pop is better for you!. I know diet pop has less sugar and calories and stuff like that, but I was told that the sugar substitute in diet pop is actually worse for you than regular pop, and I've heard some other things about it!. So which is worse, diet or regular!?Www@FoodAQ@Com
Answers:
Diet soda's have been proven to be bad for your health!. They have a lot of sodium and other chemicals that your body doesnt need!.
ASPARTAME
Artificial sweetener: "Diet" foods, including soft drinks, drink mixes, gelatin desserts, low-calorie frozen desserts, packets!.
Aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), a chemical combination of two amino acids and methanol, was initially thought to be the perfect artificial sweetener, but it might cause cancer or neurological problems such as dizziness or hallucinations!.
A 1970s study suggested that aspartame caused brain tumors in rats!. However, the Food and Drug Administration persuaded an independent review panel to reverse its conclusion that aspartame was unsafe!. The California Environmental Protection Agency and others have urged that independent scientists conduct new animal studies to resolve the cancer question!. In 2005, researchers at the Ramazzini Foundation in Bologna, Italy, conducted the first such study!. It indicated that rats first exposed to aspartame at eight weeks of age caused lymphomas and leukemias in females!. However, the European Food Safety Authority reviewed the study and concluded that the tumors probably occurred just by chance!.
In 2007, the same Italian researchers published a follow-up study that began exposing rats to aspartame in utero!. This study found that aspartame caused leukemias/lymphomas and mammary (breast) cancer!. It is likely that the new studies found problems that earlier company-sponsored studies did not because the Italian researchers monitored the rats for three years instead of two!.
In a 2006 study, U!.S!. National Cancer Institute researchers studied a large number of adults 50 to 69 years of age over a five-year period!. There was no evidence that aspartame posed any risk!. However, the study was limited in three major regards: It did not involve truly elderly people (the rat studies monitored the rats until they died a natural death), the subjects had not consumed aspartame as children, and it was not a controlled study (the subjects provided only a rough estimate of their aspartame consumption, and people who consumed aspartame might have had other dietary or lifestyle differences that obscured the chemical’s effects)!.
The bottom line is that lifelong consumption of aspartame probably increases the risk of cancer!. People—especially young children—should not consume foods and beverages sweetened with aspartame, should switch to products sweetened with SUCRALOSE (Splenda), or should avoid all artificially sweetened foods!. Two other artificial sweeteners, SACCHARIN and ACESULFAME-K, have also been linked to a risk of cancerWww@FoodAQ@Com
ASPARTAME
Artificial sweetener: "Diet" foods, including soft drinks, drink mixes, gelatin desserts, low-calorie frozen desserts, packets!.
Aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), a chemical combination of two amino acids and methanol, was initially thought to be the perfect artificial sweetener, but it might cause cancer or neurological problems such as dizziness or hallucinations!.
A 1970s study suggested that aspartame caused brain tumors in rats!. However, the Food and Drug Administration persuaded an independent review panel to reverse its conclusion that aspartame was unsafe!. The California Environmental Protection Agency and others have urged that independent scientists conduct new animal studies to resolve the cancer question!. In 2005, researchers at the Ramazzini Foundation in Bologna, Italy, conducted the first such study!. It indicated that rats first exposed to aspartame at eight weeks of age caused lymphomas and leukemias in females!. However, the European Food Safety Authority reviewed the study and concluded that the tumors probably occurred just by chance!.
In 2007, the same Italian researchers published a follow-up study that began exposing rats to aspartame in utero!. This study found that aspartame caused leukemias/lymphomas and mammary (breast) cancer!. It is likely that the new studies found problems that earlier company-sponsored studies did not because the Italian researchers monitored the rats for three years instead of two!.
In a 2006 study, U!.S!. National Cancer Institute researchers studied a large number of adults 50 to 69 years of age over a five-year period!. There was no evidence that aspartame posed any risk!. However, the study was limited in three major regards: It did not involve truly elderly people (the rat studies monitored the rats until they died a natural death), the subjects had not consumed aspartame as children, and it was not a controlled study (the subjects provided only a rough estimate of their aspartame consumption, and people who consumed aspartame might have had other dietary or lifestyle differences that obscured the chemical’s effects)!.
The bottom line is that lifelong consumption of aspartame probably increases the risk of cancer!. People—especially young children—should not consume foods and beverages sweetened with aspartame, should switch to products sweetened with SUCRALOSE (Splenda), or should avoid all artificially sweetened foods!. Two other artificial sweeteners, SACCHARIN and ACESULFAME-K, have also been linked to a risk of cancerWww@FoodAQ@Com
I've read many articles saying that diet is worse, and I stand by them!.
It has a chemical, I believe it is, called Aspartame, which is found in only diet sodas and is really bad for you!. Earthle it!
If I can find them, I'll edit this
EDIT: I'll email you one of the links, because it's not letting me post it/
http://joi!.ito!.com/weblog/2002/10/26/is-!.!.!.
http://www!.healthbolt!.net/2008/02/07/dan!.!.!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
It has a chemical, I believe it is, called Aspartame, which is found in only diet sodas and is really bad for you!. Earthle it!
If I can find them, I'll edit this
EDIT: I'll email you one of the links, because it's not letting me post it/
http://joi!.ito!.com/weblog/2002/10/26/is-!.!.!.
http://www!.healthbolt!.net/2008/02/07/dan!.!.!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Regular pop is not good for you as the sugar is bad for your body and particularly for your teeth!.
Diet avoids the sugar problems, but it depends on which sweetener is used!. RC & 7-UP and their family of drinks use splenda as a sweetener, which is safe to use!.
Regards,
DanWww@FoodAQ@Com
Diet avoids the sugar problems, but it depends on which sweetener is used!. RC & 7-UP and their family of drinks use splenda as a sweetener, which is safe to use!.
Regards,
DanWww@FoodAQ@Com
Diet pop is sort of better than you!.!.!.regular pop sugar has fat in it and makes your body crave more so the more you drink the worse it is for you!. But diet pop is a little bit bad from the substitute though!.!.!.YOUR COUSIN IS RIGHT! :pWww@FoodAQ@Com
They are equally bad technically!. But i would have to say regular definitely!. Its proven!. Diet coke may be bad- but regular is WORSEWww@FoodAQ@Com
My brother says Diet is most likely worst (and he's a really smart nerd)
he says it's got more chemicals in itWww@FoodAQ@Com
he says it's got more chemicals in itWww@FoodAQ@Com
diet is worse, the chemicals in it to keep the calories out are supposed to be bad for your brain!.
go with regularWww@FoodAQ@Com
go with regularWww@FoodAQ@Com
Diet is worse!.
I agree with you about the sugar!.
Lots of people have told me that too!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
I agree with you about the sugar!.
Lots of people have told me that too!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
