Talk:Diet drink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Diet soda)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink / Beverages (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"Health risks"

Where it says drinking no soda is healthiest, it makes me wonder why. Diet soda, aside from the caffeine, is pretty much the same as water once it's been drank. So far as I'm aware, caffeine-free diet soda is as healthy and safe as water. Ralphael 21:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably more health risks should be added, associated with each non-water ingredient:

  • caffiene : addictive, possibly other health risks ( see Caffeine )
  • aspartame, other artificial sweetener : unknown health effects ( see Sugar substitute )
  • acid : bad for teeth --GodWasAnAlien 03:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
"Other health risks." "Unknown health effects." The technical term for these items is "making stuff up." Thanks for making your agenda crystal clear. File these under NNPOV. --Darksasami 19:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I updated the list above. I was just responding to above poster who said "diet soda is as healthy and safe as water", which is quite an amazing thing to say. --GodWasAnAlien 20:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Diet Soda has a ph level of 2.5-4.5 according to this dental page:http://www.mndental.org/classroom/grades_4_6/ . http://www.dentalgentlecare.com/diet_soda.htm shows that diet soda tends to be less acidic than its regular counter parts. That's close to the acidity of Orange Juice. yet, no one is talking about not drinking OJ because of its acidity.

I'm pulling the following statement:

During that era, diet sodas accounted for 1.5 percent of the total soda market's share.

It's unclear what it's talking about, and I don't know how to fix it, since some pedestrian research isn't finding me that 1.5% figure. What era? Surely not between 1958 and 1963, when there was only one diet soda available. If someone can fix this wording, feel free to put it back. TreyHarris 08:17, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


no study has ever been made to demonstrate percentages related to which people drink these types of sodas

This seems prima facie unreasonable, considering what big business diet beverages are. No study has ever been made of the consumer demographics of a $30B industry? Do you have any citation to back up this claim? I was tempted to just remove it. TreyHarris 09:30, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you can

Dear Trey: Interesting questions. I got the tidbid about the 1.5 percent of the total soda market's share at a website, I dont remember which but it must have been cocacola.com or something maybe, because it is a well known fact that Tab was the first diet soda...now, I asked myself, if Tab was the first diet soda, then why did diet sodas already accoubnted for 1.5 percent of sodas?

I do admittedly make research on other sites because I want to stick to the facts. That tidbit of info seemed somewhat confusing but I included it because that was part of what I found in my research but youre right, I mean mathematically speaking it doesnt make sense that Tab, the first sugar free soda, entered at a time where 1.5 of all sodas were diet. Then, mwe have to look to see what they defined as diet sodas then, maybe they were low carb, low something but I dont know..

As far as the other statement, I , at least havent heard of any study done on consumers. I guess I assumed that companies and study makers figure these products are only drunk by diabetics and fitness conscious people I dont know.

Thanks for noticing and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio suga u up Martin!!

Listing based on corporate parent[edit]

I think the change to, for instance, put Mountain Dew under Pepsi is wrong. The Coca-Colas go together, obviously, as do the Pepsis. But unless you're already aware that Mountain Dew is a Pepsi product, you're not going to look under Pepsi. And this list is already larger than will fit in a normal-sized screen, so scanning the entire list isn't easy. The alternative is to break the list out into a "list of" article, with cross-references, so that Mountain Dew can go both under 'M' and under 'P'. Dale Arnett, would you mind reverting your change, or do you disagree with my reasoning here? --TreyHarris 21:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There's probably a way to organize them to make them easier to read and/or cross reference them. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Diet vs Lite[edit]

Would it be necessary to mention that in America sodas cannot be listed as "lite" due to "lite" being the beer equivalent of "diet"?

Diet Soft Drink[edit]

This page should be moved to Diet Soft Drink, with Diet Soda as a redirect. This is a more generic name, and is more dialect-neutral. --68.0.212.218 18:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Joe

I agree, especially now that the page has been marked as US-centric. Does anyone object to the page move? Confiteordeo 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

List vs Table?[edit]

Would it make sense to convert the list of drinks per sweetener to a table of drinks that use each sweetener?

It would be similar to this:

  sweetener 1 sweetener 2 sweetener 3 sweetener 4
drink 1 yes no no no
drink 2 yes no no no
drink 3 yes no no no

... and so on and so forth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dimwell (talkcontribs) 04:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Stevia[edit]

Are there any sodas made with stevia Puddytang 18:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Coke sells a version of their products in Japan using Stevia as a sweetener. The American Food and Drug Administration decided it might be dangerous though, so they banned it's use as a sweetener, although it's been used for several centuries as one. Many people suspect Monsanto was behind that decision since it coincided with aspartame being approved by the FDA and it could have competed against Nutrasweet. When Nutrasweet was approved, saccharine was still considered to be a carcinogen even though it was used extensively during WWII when sugar was rationed. And for the record, Monsanto is absolutely evil - this is a company that sold seeds that would produce crops that wouldn't produce seeds, it bankrupted thousands of poor 3rd world farmers and led to a massive amount of suicides.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.80.56.115 (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Flawed Article[edit]

I'm removing the statement "While these drinks are often marketed to those who are weight conscious, no published study has shown that drinking diet soda will cause a person to lose weight." This statement is misleading. First of all, there is NO drink out there that CAUSES people to lose weight. The only things that cause people to lose weight are activity and a lack of eating. However, considering that diet soda has less calories (typically zero) than regular soda, the calories are less and this makes weight loss easier for regular soda drinkers.Kakomu 15:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC) I've read the article further and I find most of the findings to be specious. First, there is the flawed test group, where about 60 percent of the people in the study were an abnormal weight (compared to 30% for the national average), and an astounding 70-80% of their test group became overweight by the end of the study. Second, the conclusions they draw appear to confuse causation and correlation. lastly, the sports nutritionist appears to confuse the actual definition of diet. "People often mistake diet drinks for diets, says Bonci, director of sports nutrition at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and nutrition consultant to college and professional sports teams and to the Pittsburgh Ballet." Since a diet (in the meaning they intended) is a reduction in caloric intake and an increase in healthier foods, switching from regular soda to diet soda is, in fact, a reduction of caloric intake (all things held the same). I would say that this article should be removed from Wikipedia's article, simply because it is horribly flawed.Kakomu 21:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you were right in removing that leading sentence,
but the reference to the University of Texas study should remain.
While the University of Texas study mentioned on WebMD may not be perfect, It does address an important issue: The effectiveness of Diet soda for a diet.
As for supposed confusion of causation and correlation,
"Fowler is quick to note that a study of this kind does not prove that diet soda causes obesity."
Concerning supposed confusion of the diet drinks and diets, well I think the quote is relevant, and I don't see a problem. "People often mistake diet drinks for diets". "Diet" is the sum of consumed food. "Dieting" means regulating food intake or regulating ones diet (sum of consumed food) to achieve some objective. I believe the quote is saying that just drinking diet soda is not exactly regulating ones total diet. I switched to drinking diet soda with my cheeseburgers, but the scale keeps going up....
If someone has a reference to a a better article than WebMD on this study, or better study (even one that shows that diet soda actually helps with dieting), that would be helpful to mention. GodWasAnAlien (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

For anybody that wants to add this to the chart on the page - diet lipton green tea has aspartame and acesulfame potassium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defono47 (talkcontribs) 03:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

fragment[edit]

"Furthermore, the natural responses to eating sugary foods (eating less at the next meal and using some of the extra calories to warm the body after the sugary meal)."

Not sure what the author intended but the above is not a complete sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reklar (talkcontribs) 22:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Soda vs other terms[edit]

Why does this article have "soda" in its title? Who decided soda was the term of choice? It's not the title of the soft drink article. I suggest a name change. Shouldn't it be Diet soft drink for consistency reasons? hmwithτ 04:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Kool-Aid, Lemonade, Fruit Punch, and Shirley Temples are all "soft drinks". A soft drink is just like a hard drink, except no alcohol, hence the word "soft" drink. Soda is a carbonated beverage, a soft drink is just a beverage that, I believe, is sweet and contains no alcohol.

Health risks[edit]

Here is a medical article about the health risks[1]. Should be integrated in the article. MaxPont (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


Definition of "Diet"[edit]

I have a can of Diet Orange Crush in front of me that contains 5 grams of high fructose corn syrup (25 calories total). So not all sodas labeled "diet" are actually sugar-free. Therefore I'm changing the first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancron (talkcontribs) 01:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC) you know i hate you all for ruining the soda name and what its about you bas-terds!!! from:??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.216.41 (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

why?[edit]

why are you ruining the name of the soda? why are you ruinging evrything? why are you so mean? e-mail me why. at lightbit45@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.216.41 (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Health[edit]

I made an edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_soda?diff=327976851 stating that the artificial sweeteners in diet sodas are proven to be unhealthy, which is very true. So, why the heck was it reverted? 98.216.203.117 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is true, then you need to specify references and cite the sources which indicate that this is true. Please reference the policy WP:NOR. If you can supply a citation to go along with it, it would be fine to me. Happy editing! --Mpdelbuono (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Health concerns[edit]

Aspartame and sucralose are proven to be worse for you than sugar, especially when it comes to diabetics. I have added this information to the article, and I have references for it. --76.119.154.85 (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proven by who? You need better sources than blogspot and some "Doctor's" personal webpage. Until you can find some credible sources, these additions should be outright removed. I only modified the page citing the need for better confirmation. Preferably a genuine study rather than one person's story or a blog. 70.41.204.97 (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"A preliminary abstract presented by the University of Miami's Hannah Gardener linked daily consumption of diet soda to a 61% higher incidence of "vascular events" such as strokes and heart attacks" This presentation was an abstract and not in the form of being published in a peer review journal. The average person does not understand that there is a difference here. Simply stating that "The author stated confirmation was required prior to drawing conclusions" does not provide sufficient balance. There are far too many articles that published this study that did not point out significant facts of the abstract, such as the mean age was 69 years old, and that only 116 out of 2564 participants drank diet soda daily. My entry was removed in favor of "The author stated" line. It leads the reader to think that the study has been properly reviewed and analyzed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airpain (talkcontribs) 09:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC) [1]

Actually, you understated it. The 116 drank one can or more of diet soda per day at one time point in the 10 year study when they were asked. The findings conflict with prior studies. The caveat you added was pretty good in content (maybe it did not go as far as it should) but was off stylistically. I missed the "action points" box the first time, so the editorialzed-sounding text was sourced. My only remaining problem is now use "preliminary" twice—far from horrid. My inclination is to delete the paragraph for the reasons stated below, but give it a fair discussion. Did you intend to post to this section rather than "The Manhattan study [5]" below?Novangelis (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Health concerns[edit]

"Aspartame and sucralose are proven to be worse for you than sugar, especially when it comes to diabetics. I have added this information to the article, and I have references for it. --76.119.154.85 (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)"

I take serious issue with your "references." The page liked to is not acceptable as a serious reference. It reads of conspiracy, there is nothing to indicate anything to do with science, and it links directly to the "Aspartame Toxicity Center" - notorious for their outlandish claims that Aspartame causes everything from Lupus to Cancer with absolutely nothing to back it up. Statements such as these have no place in the article and can hardly be construed as neutral, unbiased, or factual. The same goes with the reference to Sucralose, which uses a blog called "Splenda Sickness" as its reference. Again, neither factual nor unbiased.

As a result, I am removing the following statement from the article: "Some artificial sweeteners are also linked to even worse health risks, however. Aspartame is linked to some very bad health problems. It is proven to add formaldehyde to the consumer's body. Too much formaldehyde leads to methanol poisoning, which can lead to death. In addition, it is actually worse for diabetics than sugar. It can cause them to go into convulsions and can also damage their optic nerve.[7] Sucralose has also caused many bad side effects in many people.[8]"

96.49.137.132 (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think that hundreds of people would lie about Splenda? If so many people say that it gave them side effects, they can't all be lying, don't you think? 76.119.154.85 (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that hundreds of people would lie about Splenda. I do think that hundreds of people might draw the wrong conclusions based on only anecdotal evidence. "Hundreds of people" can be found who believe a lot of weird things. 60.32.77.130 (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Went to undo 96.49.137.132's re-insertion of biased and unsupported claims and found note not to remove until discussion on talk page is over. Since the reference is akin to a conspiracy theory site, I will be removing the passage in question UNTIL 96.49.137.132 can cite a proper reference for these claims. 60.32.77.130 (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Listen. I personally used to be a huge Diet Coke addict. Whenever I drank it, I got an extreme migraine and really bad back pain. I'm not alone here, either. There are tons of other people who have had the same things happen to them. And those people did not draw the wrong conclusions about Splenda. Some of them specifically stated that when they tried to stop their symptoms, they removed several things from their lives, but until they stopped using Splenda, they still had horrible things happening to them. Not a coincidence. 76.119.154.85 (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure but try to understand that "a lot of people say", "I had a personal experience" etc., don't count when you're talking about science. If there's a published study about this issue, then fine, but otherwise, it's not reliable information. Removing it again. 118.152.79.97 (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Search for "aspartame poison" and "aspartame bad for diabetics" on Google and you'll find out that I'm not lying about it. 76.127.217.214 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not you had a bad experience that you believe was caused by aspartame is not in question. Your personal experience cannot be taken as proof on any scientific basis. A study must be conducted on humans of differing conditions for a lengthy period of time with regulated doses in order to be a proper source. "I said", "He said", "She said" doesn't cut it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.26.1 (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It seriously makes me wanna cry that people are dying from this stuff and we're not doing anything to prevent it. Wikipedia is meant to be a reliable of information that people need to know. It's a fact that people have died from Aspartame, but if we don't have the information in the article, people won't know about its dangers. It really has killed many people and made many others suffer. If the information was in the article, that would be preventable. But I am seriously going to cry if the information gets removed again. You guys don't really want to deprive people of safety information that they need to know, do you? Only cruel people would do that. 76.127.217.214 (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... This is growing tiresome. You appear to have difficulty with the notion of what an appropriate source is. I'll quote directly from the blurb at the bottom of Wikipedia's page: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". Please take it upon yourself to learn the rules and what is acceptable content and what is not. Whether you have a particular personal opinion on this simply does not enter into it. And I'm sorry if that makes you cry. 96.49.137.132 (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This stuff is not some kind of joke! This is serious! These horrible sweeteners are killing people! If we had information here about how dangerous they are, less people would die from them! But you guys are depriving people of important information they need to know! 76.127.217.214 (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Look, Wikipedia is not a news site. We're not here to alert the population about new unproven health risks. Once there's verifiable coverage of this by reliable sources then it will merit inclusion. I also take issue with the way you're phrasing your inclusions so decisively. Not even scientific and medical papers are that certain with this sort of thing. It's one thing to say "smoking cigarettes might lead to lung cancer and other health issues", but that doesn't happen to everyone who smokes. I urge you to please read WP:RS and WP:V before attempting to add this back into the article. If you add it again with no reliable sources, I will report you for edit warring. XXX antiuser eh? 19:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
So you think it's good that these sweeteners are killing people?! 76.127.217.214 (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no proof that they are, or that they aren't. It's all speculative and that does not belong on Wikipedia. If it's ever proven that Aspartame or Sucralose cause the effects you and your dubious sources claim they do, the media will be all over it. Find me a peer-reviewed scientific journal or a report by a major media outlet that says someone conclusively died because of sweetener ingestion and I will add it to the article myself. XXX antiuser eh? 19:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
There's ton of websites about how dangerous they are. And I nearly died of a brain tumor from Aspartame, as well. 76.127.217.214 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There's also a ton of websites about how Elvis is still alive or how 9/11 was an inside job or how man never landed on the moon. That doesn't make any of those allegations real. XXX antiuser eh? 19:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I nearly died of a brain tumor from Aspartame, and seeing as how there are some websites that say that Aspartame causes brain tumors, they're not lying. 76.127.217.214 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you're still with us. But how do you know your tumour was caused by Aspartame? What basis did your doctor have to diagnose it as such? If they are referencing a journal you might want to ask them for its doi. That would be a valid ref. XXX antiuser eh? 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, basically, here's my story.
  1. I first had Diet Dr Pepper in 1996 when I was 4 years old, and OMG! I loved it so much!
  2. I drank it a few times between then and my 8th birthday.
  3. The day of my 8th birthday was when I started drinking it everyday.
  4. By my 12th birthday, I was drinking several cans of it a day, rather than just 1 can per day.
  5. One day in July 2009 (when I was 17), I suddenly had a seizure and at the hospital, they discovered the tumor.
  6. I had an operation to have the tumor removed, and it was 100% successful.
  7. So, shortly afterwards, me and some of the doctors at the hospital wanted to discover what caused the tumor. When we were going over what my habits were prior to the tumor, I told them I drank several cans of Diet Dr Pepper everyday.
  8. Then, they told me that it was likely that the Aspartame from the Diet Dr Pepper caused the tumor. They also said I was very lucky that the operation was successful and especially that the tumor was able to be operated on. Most brain tumors caused by Aspartame can't be operated on.

I have not drank Diet Dr Pepper since then. Prior to getting the tumor, my hair was also falling out and my legs and arms would also go numb at random times. Those are also things that Aspartame can do. 76.127.217.214 (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I hate that this happened to you, but it proves nothing. Cancer is caused by a mutation in the DNA of your cells. It could be exposure to some outside stimulant or it could just... have mutated (evolved). You could be genetically predisposed. Not to be blunt, but it's far more likely you should blame your parents than diet soda. 96.37.240.48 (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you search for "diet soda" on Google, the first 2 results are pages about how bad Aspartame is. 76.127.217.214 (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Claimed personal experiences are original research, and not a viable basis for content additions. Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable sources, not whether editors think it is true. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT I find your story hard to believe, but I'm going to assume good faith and just walk away from this discussion. XXX antiuser eh? 22:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless you can provide reliable references to back this up, this is seen as original research, which is forbidden here. I could always say that I use Splenda all the time and I've never had a migraine. That would effectively cancel out your claims, and the article would be none the better. Therefore, we don't accept claims without some reliable source that can back it up. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Search for "diet soda" on Google. You will be AMAZED at how many of the results are about how bad it is. And that's on the first page ALONE. 76.127.217.214 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame and sucralose are causing global warming, AIDs, and America to be the fattest country in the world. If you disagree with me you are ignorant and have no sources. Michael J. Fox does not have Parkinson's disease, he just drinks too much Diet Coke. Also, Chuck Norris would never drink Aspartame and sucralose because he shits excellence. STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Manhattan study [5][edit]

The Manhattan that's been reported in the press, and is linked to reference [5] refers to the International Stroke Conference. There's no mention of this study in the the actual abstracts from that conference, only the related study that was reported as well (salt intake vs stroke risk) (page 50).

Was the soda article even printed somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.197.105 (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The abstract can be found here. This is problematic material, but highly topical (by definitions, favorable and unfavorable). It's inclusion runs into problems with WP:MEDRS and Recentism. I would love to find a reliably sourced evaluation of press coverage that allows discussion of the coverage without overly focusing on the content of a preliminary report. So far, all I have seen is blogs. I took the liberty of rewriting it with less of a statement/editorial caveat format.Novangelis (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Soft Drink.svg[edit]

The file File:Soft Drink.svg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Soft Drink.svg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Soft Drink.svg[edit]

The file File:Soft Drink.svg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Soft Drink.svg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

read the article why diet soda bad for you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.169.172.225 (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "ASA: Diet Soda Tied to Vascular Risk, With Caveats" by Todd Neale, Staff Writer, MedPage Today (February 09, 2011).