favorite diet soda?
- Thread starter gogofast
- Start date
Putterman
Super Member
I'd take my chances with the occasional regular cola, before I would put any of that diet crap into my body. I'll pass on something that breaks down into methanol and formaldehyde, thanks very much.
There are sodas that use sucralose rather than aspartame.
This from a physics forum
In the body Aspartame metabolises primarily to Phenylalanine ~50%, secondarily to Aspartic Acid ~40%, and Methanol ~10%.
I am unable to find out what happens to Aspartame in the acidic environment of our stomach. According to Wikipedia, "Under strongly acidic or alkaline conditions, aspartame may generate methanol by hydrolysis." which I have confirmed with several other research resources. I do not know how 'strongly acidic or alkaline' it must be. I would like to find this out. I am also unable to obtain pure aspartame to test its reactivity with different acids or chemicals.
~10% x 111mg = ~11.1mg of methanol after metabolization
Wikipedia - If ingested, as little as 10 mL of pure methanol
can cause permanent blindness by destruction of the optic nerve,
and 30 ml is potentially fatal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame
So for a quantity of Aspartame that would cause permanent damage and severe symptoms (if fully metabolized and absorbed) I shall calculate approximately how much you need to consume.
Methanol's density is 0.791 g/mL
Mass = density * volume
Mass = 0.791*10.00 (for 10ml)
Mass = 7.91
Mass conversion: 7.91 g = 7,910mg
7,910mg / 11.1mg = 712.612612-(just keeps going)
713~ cans of Pepsi would produce a toxic methanol dose after metabolization (assuming nothing else would affect it)
(also assuming you hadn't already suffered from some other effect from some other ingredient [like blood dilution from all that water? lol])
My takeaway from this is the old expression is that The dose makes the poison, a principle of toxicology, as expressed by Paracelsus, i.e. that a substance can produce the harmful effect associated with its toxic properties only if it reaches a susceptible biological system within the body in a high enough concentration (dose).[1]
Having said this I still prefer diet soda sweetened with splenda (sucralose) based on my perception that there are more health complaints about aspartame than sucralose. My sense of regular cola is that it is not a natural product. The production of sugar (basically the major component of sweetened soda) is quite an industrial process and was certainly not a significant part of our diet until the last few hundred years. I recommend "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes to get in to the health effect of excess sugar in the diet.
There are sodas that use sucralose rather than aspartame.
This from a physics forum
In the body Aspartame metabolises primarily to Phenylalanine ~50%, secondarily to Aspartic Acid ~40%, and Methanol ~10%.
I am unable to find out what happens to Aspartame in the acidic environment of our stomach. According to Wikipedia, "Under strongly acidic or alkaline conditions, aspartame may generate methanol by hydrolysis." which I have confirmed with several other research resources. I do not know how 'strongly acidic or alkaline' it must be. I would like to find this out. I am also unable to obtain pure aspartame to test its reactivity with different acids or chemicals.
~10% x 111mg = ~11.1mg of methanol after metabolization
Wikipedia - If ingested, as little as 10 mL of pure methanol
can cause permanent blindness by destruction of the optic nerve,
and 30 ml is potentially fatal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame
So for a quantity of Aspartame that would cause permanent damage and severe symptoms (if fully metabolized and absorbed) I shall calculate approximately how much you need to consume.
Methanol's density is 0.791 g/mL
Mass = density * volume
Mass = 0.791*10.00 (for 10ml)
Mass = 7.91
Mass conversion: 7.91 g = 7,910mg
7,910mg / 11.1mg = 712.612612-(just keeps going)
713~ cans of Pepsi would produce a toxic methanol dose after metabolization (assuming nothing else would affect it)
(also assuming you hadn't already suffered from some other effect from some other ingredient [like blood dilution from all that water? lol])
My takeaway from this is the old expression is that The dose makes the poison, a principle of toxicology, as expressed by Paracelsus, i.e. that a substance can produce the harmful effect associated with its toxic properties only if it reaches a susceptible biological system within the body in a high enough concentration (dose).[1]
Having said this I still prefer diet soda sweetened with splenda (sucralose) based on my perception that there are more health complaints about aspartame than sucralose. My sense of regular cola is that it is not a natural product. The production of sugar (basically the major component of sweetened soda) is quite an industrial process and was certainly not a significant part of our diet until the last few hundred years. I recommend "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes to get in to the health effect of excess sugar in the diet.
Junknewbian
Well-Known Member
I've lost 17 pounds since switching from Whisky+Coke to Whisky+Diet Coke, about 8 months ago. No other major dietary changes.
Coke Zero is the best diet cola I have ever tasted. I find the taste very pleasant and I don't get that diet soda stomach burn from it. I drink maybe one a month when I need to wet my whistle during meetings and am looking for a caffeine buzz. I have too much money invested in dental work to drink sugar water.
From another website:
I wanted to comment on Splenda. Splenda, also known as sucralose, was created accidentally when some chemists were trying to produce an insecticide. Here is the process by which they produce the formula sold in stores:
“1. Sucrose is tritylated with trityl chloride in the presence of dimethylformamide and 4-methylmorpholine, and the tritylated sucrose is then acetylated with acetic anhydride.
2. The resulting sucrose molecule TRISPA is chlorinated with hydrogen chlorine in the presence of tolulene.
3. The resulting 4-PAS is heated in the presence of methyl isobutyl ketone and acetic acid.
4. The resulting 6-PAS is chlorinated with thionyl chloride in the presence of toluene and benzyltriethylammonium chloride.
5. The resulting TOSPA is treated with methanol in the presence of sodium methoxide to produce sucralose.” (Note that methanol, wood alcohol aka paint remover, is one of the questionable ingredients in aspartame.)
In addition, the bags and packets of Splenda commercially available are not pure sucralose. They also contain bulking agents. All artificial sweeteners use bulking agents. Do you know what they use? Sugar. Dextrose, sucrose, and maltodextrin. (Maltodextrin is corn syrup solids composed primarily from fructose and glucose in a starch form.) All sweetener packets are at least 96 percent sugar. Splenda is 99% sugar.
The packets are labelled calorie free as a result of manipulating a loophole in the food labeling laws. The product can be described as sugar free if a serving contains less than 5 grams of sugar, and calorie free if a serving is less than 5 calories. So they set the serving size on bags at .5 grams and the packets contain a serving of 1 gram. A one gram packet contains 4 calories. This can be confirmed on the manufacturer’s website in the FAQ section: “Like many no and low calorie sweeteners, each serving of SPLENDA® No Calorie Sweetener contains a very small amount of common food ingredients, e.g., dextrose and/or maltodextrin, for volume. Because the amount of these ingredients is so small, SPLENDA® No Calorie Sweetener still has an insignificant calorie value per serving and meets FDA’s standards for “no calorie” sweeteners. “
To make matters worse, when sucralose was shown to not raise blood sugars, it was the pure substance that was tested, not the mixture that is sold to the public. Dextrose, sucrose, and/or maltodextrin are definitely going to raise a diabetic’s blood sugar. There is also a great deal of evidence that artificial sweeteners actually cause an increase in appetite, causing people who consume them to take in more calories than they would otherwise.
I wanted to comment on Splenda. Splenda, also known as sucralose, was created accidentally when some chemists were trying to produce an insecticide. Here is the process by which they produce the formula sold in stores:
“1. Sucrose is tritylated with trityl chloride in the presence of dimethylformamide and 4-methylmorpholine, and the tritylated sucrose is then acetylated with acetic anhydride.
2. The resulting sucrose molecule TRISPA is chlorinated with hydrogen chlorine in the presence of tolulene.
3. The resulting 4-PAS is heated in the presence of methyl isobutyl ketone and acetic acid.
4. The resulting 6-PAS is chlorinated with thionyl chloride in the presence of toluene and benzyltriethylammonium chloride.
5. The resulting TOSPA is treated with methanol in the presence of sodium methoxide to produce sucralose.” (Note that methanol, wood alcohol aka paint remover, is one of the questionable ingredients in aspartame.)
In addition, the bags and packets of Splenda commercially available are not pure sucralose. They also contain bulking agents. All artificial sweeteners use bulking agents. Do you know what they use? Sugar. Dextrose, sucrose, and maltodextrin. (Maltodextrin is corn syrup solids composed primarily from fructose and glucose in a starch form.) All sweetener packets are at least 96 percent sugar. Splenda is 99% sugar.
The packets are labelled calorie free as a result of manipulating a loophole in the food labeling laws. The product can be described as sugar free if a serving contains less than 5 grams of sugar, and calorie free if a serving is less than 5 calories. So they set the serving size on bags at .5 grams and the packets contain a serving of 1 gram. A one gram packet contains 4 calories. This can be confirmed on the manufacturer’s website in the FAQ section: “Like many no and low calorie sweeteners, each serving of SPLENDA® No Calorie Sweetener contains a very small amount of common food ingredients, e.g., dextrose and/or maltodextrin, for volume. Because the amount of these ingredients is so small, SPLENDA® No Calorie Sweetener still has an insignificant calorie value per serving and meets FDA’s standards for “no calorie” sweeteners. “
To make matters worse, when sucralose was shown to not raise blood sugars, it was the pure substance that was tested, not the mixture that is sold to the public. Dextrose, sucrose, and/or maltodextrin are definitely going to raise a diabetic’s blood sugar. There is also a great deal of evidence that artificial sweeteners actually cause an increase in appetite, causing people who consume them to take in more calories than they would otherwise.
squirrelnest
Lunatic Member
gogofast
Addicted Member
yaiks, guys. i was just interested in what diet sodas people liked, but wasn't looking for an opinion on whether it might cause cancer. i think most people are well aware of all that's mentioned so far. i don't go posting how smoking cigarettes will cause cancer in threads about what they smoke while listening to music or how drinking can be a problem in liquor threads. :nono:
hatrack71
distracted by everything
+1, most of the Diet **** uses aspartame.
sxty8goats
Super Member
Poland Springs Seltzers. No sugar, no Sodium, no artificial sweeteners. Just a touch of flavor and bubbles.
Sorry, one of these days I'll learn to never post in an Off-Topic thread, I wish this site was a stereo only site.:yes:
Putterman
Super Member
Originally Posted by gogofast
yaiks, guys. i was just interested in what diet sodas people liked, but wasn't looking for an opinion on whether it might cause cancer. i think most people are well aware of all that's mentioned so far. i don't go posting how smoking cigarettes will cause cancer in threads about what they smoke while listening to music or how drinking can be a problem in liquor threads.
Alright, I'll try again. My favorite diet soda is a Jupina Diet Pineapple soda which I used to be able to find in the Hispanic section of my local Super Wal Mart. They also had a Mate soda which was pretty cool. Also I've found Diet Schweppes Ginger Ale to be pretty good. For colas, I've found the name brands; Coke, Pepsi etc. to be somewhat better than the store brands.
My previous point was that in terms of balancing risks, I find that there's more straight out harmful effects of excess sugars on the body than the fairly inconclusive data concerning artificial sweeteners.
yaiks, guys. i was just interested in what diet sodas people liked, but wasn't looking for an opinion on whether it might cause cancer. i think most people are well aware of all that's mentioned so far. i don't go posting how smoking cigarettes will cause cancer in threads about what they smoke while listening to music or how drinking can be a problem in liquor threads.
Alright, I'll try again. My favorite diet soda is a Jupina Diet Pineapple soda which I used to be able to find in the Hispanic section of my local Super Wal Mart. They also had a Mate soda which was pretty cool. Also I've found Diet Schweppes Ginger Ale to be pretty good. For colas, I've found the name brands; Coke, Pepsi etc. to be somewhat better than the store brands.
My previous point was that in terms of balancing risks, I find that there's more straight out harmful effects of excess sugars on the body than the fairly inconclusive data concerning artificial sweeteners.
I don't like the taste of diet stuff, regardless of what they use to sweeten it. I think half and half would be drinkable though, and would welcome some half-sugar variants. So far the only one I know of is Pepsi Next, which is OK but I'm not much of a cola drinker. Dr. Pepper, root beer or ginger ale is what I drink when I do have a soda, so here's my vote for some half-sugar versions of those.
I'll refrain from debating some of the above glurge about sweeteners out of respect for the OP.
I'll refrain from debating some of the above glurge about sweeteners out of respect for the OP.
r_brumett61
Well-Known Member
"Big Red Zero"-with "White Castles"-awesome!
