I know real coke is toxic in large amounts what about diet?
is diet coke bad for you
1 of 3
I'd say that normal Coke is healthier than diet Coke. Diet Coke contains many harmful sugar substitutes, whereas with normal Coke, what you see is what you get.
Plus, very overwight people look stupid when they're drinking diet coke with their megasized sandwich, so they should get rid of it.
Plus, very overwight people look stupid when they're drinking diet coke with their megasized sandwich, so they should get rid of it.
Originally Posted by Biffo the Bear:
“I'd say that normal Coke is healthier than diet Coke. Diet Coke contains many harmful sugar substitutes, whereas with normal Coke, what you see is what you get.
Plus, very overwight people look stupid when they're drinking diet coke with their megasized sandwich, so they should get rid of it.”
“I'd say that normal Coke is healthier than diet Coke. Diet Coke contains many harmful sugar substitutes, whereas with normal Coke, what you see is what you get.
Plus, very overwight people look stupid when they're drinking diet coke with their megasized sandwich, so they should get rid of it.”
Yeah, Diet Coke has aspartame instead of sugar, which is pretty bad news.
Originally Posted by Biffo the Bear:
“I'd say that normal Coke is healthier than diet Coke.”
“I'd say that normal Coke is healthier than diet Coke.”
Not if you're diabetic.
At least you know where you are with sugar. Lots of those sweeteners have cancer causing chemicals in them and they have to declare them on the label.
Another point to consider is that diet coke is foul.
I agree about overweight people and diet coke. I was in a shop at lunchtime last week and one large woman ordered a baked potato the size of a baby's head with cheese, bacon and beans, a packet of crisps and a diet coke. What's the point?
Another point to consider is that diet coke is foul.
I agree about overweight people and diet coke. I was in a shop at lunchtime last week and one large woman ordered a baked potato the size of a baby's head with cheese, bacon and beans, a packet of crisps and a diet coke. What's the point?
Originally Posted by stoatie:
“Yeah, Diet Coke has aspartame instead of sugar, which is pretty bad news.”
“Yeah, Diet Coke has aspartame instead of sugar, which is pretty bad news.”
is that this aspartame?
Iain
Originally Posted by LaurieMarlow:
“At least you know where you are with sugar. Lots of those sweeteners have cancer causing chemicals in them and they have to declare them on the label.
Another point to consider is that diet coke is foul.
I agree about overweight people and diet coke. I was in a shop at lunchtime last week and one large woman ordered a baked potato the size of a baby's head with cheese, bacon and beans, a packet of crisps and a diet coke. What's the point?”
“At least you know where you are with sugar. Lots of those sweeteners have cancer causing chemicals in them and they have to declare them on the label.
Another point to consider is that diet coke is foul.
I agree about overweight people and diet coke. I was in a shop at lunchtime last week and one large woman ordered a baked potato the size of a baby's head with cheese, bacon and beans, a packet of crisps and a diet coke. What's the point?”
that gets said a lot.
i assume the answer is that cheese, bacon, beans and crsips aren't all really sweet and diet coke isn't either, has no sugar, and so doesn't do isn't as bad for the teeth as normal coke.
i don't drink coke that often, but i much prefer diet coke, as i've gotten used to it because its nowhere near as sickly sweet as normal coke.
i don't eat burgers very often either, but when i do, i have diet coke, for the reason above.
would you wonder what the point was in my example to?
Iain
Hmm, yeah! You got me. To be honest, my only knowledge of aspartame comes from my drug-fuelled youth as a fully paid-up member of the tinfoil hat brigade. Think I read in a Jim Keith book that it was developed post-war by Nazis and made people more susceptible to mind-control techniques. Having not thought about it for years, I hadn't really questioned the logic behind my "aspartame = bad" received wisdom.
Note to self- every now and then, have a look at your assumptions and see if they hold water.
Dr Karl from 5Live and ABC / Triple J in Australia (all his stuff is worthing listening to imo), did a good article on the aspartame myth a while ago.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...05/1167056.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...05/1167056.htm
It is very bad for your teeth, it erodes the enamel. I think the substitute sugars are very acidic or something.
Originally Posted by Taz93:
“It has Aspartame which is 200 times sweeter than sugar.”
“It has Aspartame which is 200 times sweeter than sugar.”
Does that mean they use 1/200th of the amount?
Yes, it's very bad for you. And not just for you, but for all the rest of us as well...
See also here, if you are interested.
Quote:
“The US-based International Labour Rights Fund, and the US United Steelworkers filed a lawsuit against Coca-Cola accusing its franchised bottle plant in Colombia of using paramilitaries to suppress union activity. In the still-unresolved case, Coca-Cola said it could not be held responsible because the plants were not directly under its control.The lawsuit filed in Miami in 2001 alleged that the company "maintains open relations with murderous death squads as part of a program to intimidate trade union leaders."
Corporate Influence Under a contract signed in 1997, the Colorado Springs school district will receive $8.4 million over ten years to sell a requirement of 70,000 cases of Coke products a year. The company urged school administrators to increase sales of Coke products by allowing better and unlimited access to machines and by allowing students to drink in classrooms. The company said it planned to spread this model throughout America. Will the UK be next?
In November 2000, Coca-Cola settled a class-action lawsuit by paying a record $192.5 million in settlements. The company was charged with racial discrimination, allegedly denying African Americans adequate pay, promotions, and performance evaluations. The lawsuit was filed by four past and current employees, ranging from a security guard to a former executive, on behalf of as many as 2,000 black employees who currently work for or have had salaried positions at Coca-Cola throughout the United States since April 1985. The plaintiffs claimed that Coca-Cola paid its average black employee nearly $27,000 a year less than its average white employee and limited black workers´ chances for promotion. In 2001, while Coca-Cola´s shares fell 23%, CEO Douglas Daft´s pay and bonus increased 17%, and he was given stock options worth up to $45.7 million and restricted stock work $47.9 million.
In 1989 Kolody pitched Coke´s ad agency a concept that involved a graphic collusion of Coca-Cola and automobile memorabilia. Kolody heard nothing back from Coke but nine months he discovered that aspects of his campaign were being disseminated through Coke´s new Cherry Coke can designs. When Kolody attempted to discuss the matter with the agency's executives he was rebuffed and they claimed to have lost his story-boards. Even more interesting is that at the same time, Coke failed to renew their copyright on a very famous image that appeared on their first soda can in 1961: the ´contour bottle on the Coca-Cola can´ image. When Coke failed to renew the 1961 copyright , Kolody became the de facto rights holder because he had created a derivative work of the image for his pitch with the agency.
In 1993, Coke resurrected the "contour bottle" image for their Classic Coke cans and filed a fraudulent copyright application in order to protect it. A fundamental precept of intellectual property law stipulates that an entity is not allowed to file for a copyright on an image that has already been published and then released into the public domain or adopted by someone else. In the case of the 'contour bottle', Coke either forgot to renew their copyright or did not understand the law. When they re-filed in 1993, the copyright office warned them that to file for a copyright which has already been published is fraud. Coke went ahead and did it anyway! The Case is presently under appeal ,with allegations of bribery and corruption.
http://www.endevil.com/blacklist.html#Coca-Cola”
“The US-based International Labour Rights Fund, and the US United Steelworkers filed a lawsuit against Coca-Cola accusing its franchised bottle plant in Colombia of using paramilitaries to suppress union activity. In the still-unresolved case, Coca-Cola said it could not be held responsible because the plants were not directly under its control.The lawsuit filed in Miami in 2001 alleged that the company "maintains open relations with murderous death squads as part of a program to intimidate trade union leaders."
Corporate Influence Under a contract signed in 1997, the Colorado Springs school district will receive $8.4 million over ten years to sell a requirement of 70,000 cases of Coke products a year. The company urged school administrators to increase sales of Coke products by allowing better and unlimited access to machines and by allowing students to drink in classrooms. The company said it planned to spread this model throughout America. Will the UK be next?
In November 2000, Coca-Cola settled a class-action lawsuit by paying a record $192.5 million in settlements. The company was charged with racial discrimination, allegedly denying African Americans adequate pay, promotions, and performance evaluations. The lawsuit was filed by four past and current employees, ranging from a security guard to a former executive, on behalf of as many as 2,000 black employees who currently work for or have had salaried positions at Coca-Cola throughout the United States since April 1985. The plaintiffs claimed that Coca-Cola paid its average black employee nearly $27,000 a year less than its average white employee and limited black workers´ chances for promotion. In 2001, while Coca-Cola´s shares fell 23%, CEO Douglas Daft´s pay and bonus increased 17%, and he was given stock options worth up to $45.7 million and restricted stock work $47.9 million.
In 1989 Kolody pitched Coke´s ad agency a concept that involved a graphic collusion of Coca-Cola and automobile memorabilia. Kolody heard nothing back from Coke but nine months he discovered that aspects of his campaign were being disseminated through Coke´s new Cherry Coke can designs. When Kolody attempted to discuss the matter with the agency's executives he was rebuffed and they claimed to have lost his story-boards. Even more interesting is that at the same time, Coke failed to renew their copyright on a very famous image that appeared on their first soda can in 1961: the ´contour bottle on the Coca-Cola can´ image. When Coke failed to renew the 1961 copyright , Kolody became the de facto rights holder because he had created a derivative work of the image for his pitch with the agency.
In 1993, Coke resurrected the "contour bottle" image for their Classic Coke cans and filed a fraudulent copyright application in order to protect it. A fundamental precept of intellectual property law stipulates that an entity is not allowed to file for a copyright on an image that has already been published and then released into the public domain or adopted by someone else. In the case of the 'contour bottle', Coke either forgot to renew their copyright or did not understand the law. When they re-filed in 1993, the copyright office warned them that to file for a copyright which has already been published is fraud. Coke went ahead and did it anyway! The Case is presently under appeal ,with allegations of bribery and corruption.
http://www.endevil.com/blacklist.html#Coca-Cola”
See also here, if you are interested.
Large amounts of diet coke can give you a very bad upset stomach leading to dehydration because of the active ingredients. Any coke in large quantities is very bad for you.
Originally Posted by lou-kate:
“It is very bad for your teeth, it erodes the enamel. I think the substitute sugars are very acidic or something.”
“It is very bad for your teeth, it erodes the enamel. I think the substitute sugars are very acidic or something.”
Well, no.
Both diet and regular drinks can contain organic acids as ingredients, so acid plus a heck of alot of sugar will be worse for your teeth than the acid alone. The sugar substitute aspartame has no effect on dental health.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/2969
To the above poster: anything in large quantities is bad for you.
Originally Posted by LaurieMarlow:
“Another point to consider is that diet coke is foul.
”
“Another point to consider is that diet coke is foul.
”
This I agree with. So many people have told me that if you drink it for long enough normal coke tastes foul and so I tried it for a month but at the end of the month I still thought it was gross.
diet coke is alot less bad for you out of the two, but neither is a healthy drink. a normal can of coke has 10 spoons of sugar in, which is hugely bad for you in every instance
Originally Posted by lou-kate:
“It is very bad for your teeth, it erodes the enamel. I think the substitute sugars are very acidic or something.”
“It is very bad for your teeth, it erodes the enamel. I think the substitute sugars are very acidic or something.”
There's just as much phosphoric and citric acid in regular coke as in diet coke.
Originally Posted by bigbruvvaluvvau:
“diet coke is alot less bad for you out of the two, but neither is a healthy drink. a normal can of coke has 10 spoons of sugar in, which is hugely bad for you in every instance”
“diet coke is alot less bad for you out of the two, but neither is a healthy drink. a normal can of coke has 10 spoons of sugar in, which is hugely bad for you in every instance”
I feel like im defending the bad guys here
but sugar alone isn't that bad for you, if you're active enough to burn off the calories. The real problem with sugar is that it when mixed it makes large quantities of fat palatable, which really isn't good for you (saturated fat obviously).
Anything that is addictive can hardly be 'good' for you. I'm not a fan of any 'diet' drinks but Diet Coke is definitely my least tolerated out of the lot......only drinkable if with a few shots of vodka in it.
Originally Posted by Wiz Net:
“Large amounts of diet coke can give you a very bad upset stomach leading to dehydration because of the active ingredients. Any coke in large quantities is very bad for you.”
“Large amounts of diet coke can give you a very bad upset stomach leading to dehydration because of the active ingredients. Any coke in large quantities is very bad for you.”
Just a note, you can always tell when someone is quoting from some urban myth chain email when they use terms like "active ingredient".
Coke isn't a drug, its sole purpose is to taste good. It has no active ingredients.
1 of 3
