The &quot;New&quot; Sprite

artificial sweeteners! in everything these days

chemical frankeinstein sweeteners...and leaves that horrible after taste gggrrrrr

That is EXACTLY my problem. Remember that once nice drink from Britvic called J2o? Well that too is now completely disgusting - Same problem.

tortfeasor · 18-05-2013, 21:43

I'll have to make a point of buying some. I think the last time I had Sprite was over Christmas. I'm a Diet Coke addict so the majority of my spend on soft drinks goes for that particular product unless the 'offers' are really poor in comparison to those for its main rival.

I think there must be a trend going on because the last times I've had some White's lemonade I've thought it wasn't as nice as it used to be. It also left a weird aftertaste.

Quote:

That is EXACTLY my problem. Remember that once nice drink from Britvic called J2o? Well that too is now completely disgusting - Same problem.

It wasn't ever a first choice drink for me but I had one recently and thought it was insipid! I let one of my friends finish the rest of it for me. I expect the change in sweeteners is part of the reason why I thought it tasted horrible.

OnexOne · 18-05-2013, 21:48

its also really hit the dilute to taste market aswell! Robinsons was one of the only dilute to taste range i bought due to the cheaper ones being riddled with artificial sweetner! butnow Robinsons have them

,they used to market there range in not having them too!

Johnnys Arcade · 18-05-2013, 21:56

Quote:

its also really hit the dilute to taste market aswell! Robinsons was one of the only dilute to taste range i bought due to the cheaper ones being riddled with artificial sweetner! butnow Robinsons have them

,they used to market there range in not having them too!

You are correct there! The once-delicious Robinson's is now also rancid. Tip - If buying Robinson's look out for the GREEN CAP only. Avoid the Blue Cap as it is riddled with disgusting sweeteners. Bang out of order.

OnexOne · 18-05-2013, 22:04

Quote:

You are correct there! The once-delicious Robinson's is now also rancid. Tip - If buying Robinson's look out for the GREEN CAP only. Avoid the Blue Cap as it is riddled with disgusting sweeteners. Bang out of order.

thanks for the tip, will be looking out for green cap only from now on!

Johnnys Arcade · 18-05-2013, 22:35

Quote:

thanks for the tip, will be looking out for green cap only from now on!

Well you might have a harder job than you think! The nasty Blue caps outnumber the decent Green caps by at least 5 : 1. You will soon see what I mean when you take a look.

OnexOne · 18-05-2013, 23:03

Quote:

Well you might have a harder job than you think! The nasty Blue caps outnumber the decent Green caps by at least 5 : 1. You will soon see what I mean when you take a look.

damn! hate being force fed aspartame and saccharin!

Johnnys Arcade · 18-05-2013, 23:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Landdrifter24

damn! hate being force fed aspartame and saccharin!

Well so do I! As a soft drinks drinker since the 70s I just refuse point blank to drink any soft drink with sweeteners in it. Now as I do not drink alchohol or tea/coffee I RELY on soft drinks. You would not believe the lengths I sometimes have to go to to get a drink! As a general rule UK Fanta is undrinkable to me because of the sweeteners, HOWEVER draught Fanta (such as McDonalds, KFC, Burger King & Subway etc) DOES NOT contain any sweeteners. You can taste the difference straight away.

Johnnys Arcade · 19-05-2013, 11:44

Quote:

I've tried it, not that i'm an expert, but i struggled to tell the difference between the sugar/stevia one and the old full sugar one, so can't see why people are getting all rowdy about it... although I've tried Tropicana's Trop 50, i think that as got Stevia in it and i could tell the difference in that and won't be buying it again as it tasted strange compared to regular Tropicana

I tried that Trop 50 recently stupidly without reading the ingredients. I took one small sip & poured the rest down the sink. It was disgusting!

cassius_west · 19-05-2013, 12:18

Quote:

...You would not believe the lengths I sometimes have to go to to get a drink!

Believe me, I would. I have the same trouble sometimes! Can't stand sweeteners either.

They have now proven that those who ingest sweeteners vs those who ingest sugar are more likely to eat more and thus consume more calories overall. Reason being that the body expects calories if you eat/drink something sweet. If it doesn't get those calories, it will compensate for this by stimulating your appetite. Not to mention the fact of them being carcinogenic neurotoxins!

epicurian · 19-05-2013, 18:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by epicurian

Believe me, I would. I have the same trouble sometimes! Can't stand sweeteners either.

They have now proven that those who ingest sweeteners vs those who ingest sugar are more likely to eat more and thus consume more calories overall. Reason being that the body expects calories if you eat/drink something sweet. If it doesn't get those calories, it will compensate for this by stimulating your appetite. Not to mention the fact of them being carcinogenic neurotoxins!

If you're talking about the cephalic phase insulin response, I'd be interested to see a link saying it's been proven.

As for them being carcinogenic and neurotoxic, there's simply no evidence for that, I'm afraid.

cassius_west · 19-05-2013, 18:41

Quote:

If you're talking about the cephalic phase insulin response, I'd be interested to see a link saying it's been proven.

As for them being carcinogenic and neurotoxic, there's simply no evidence for that, I'm afraid.

As far as the neurotoxins are concerned, the interenet is plastered with articles on the matter. A quick Google of 'neurotoxins in sweeteners' gives many results. For example: here and here.

But looking at the evidence for carcinogenic effect, current evidence does suggest a myth as described here. It seems that they were thought to be carcinogenic due to a study done on rats, but they couldn't duplicate the same results in mice so was deemed questionable/out-of-date. In which case I take back what I said about it being carcinogenic.

As for the appetite thing.. I just remember one of those diet programs on tv last year some time. If memory serves, they had 2 teams of rugby players. One with diet drinks, the other full-sugar versions. They had to eat as many chicken drumsticks as they could. The ones who drank the full-sugar fizzy drinks ate much fewer chicken drumsticks than the team on the diet fizzy drinks. And in the very first of the above 3 links I posted it states: "..artificial sweeteners have not even been proven to aid in weight loss. The opposite is actually true. A 10-year study by researchers at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio showed that those who drank two or more diet sodas a day had a 500% greater increase in waist size."

epicurian · 19-05-2013, 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by epicurian

As far as the neurotoxins are concerned, the interenet is plastered with articles on the matter. A quick Google of 'neurotoxins in sweeteners' gives many results. For example: here and here.

But looking at the evidence for carcinogenic effect, current evidence does suggest a myth as described here. It seems that they were thought to be carcinogenic due to a study done on rats, but they couldn't duplicate the same results in mice so was deemed questionable/out-of-date. In which case I take back what I said about it being carcinogenic.

As for the appetite thing.. I just remember one of those diet programs on tv last year some time. If memory serves, they had 2 teams of rugby players. One with diet drinks, the other full-sugar versions. They had to eat as many chicken drumsticks as they could. The ones who drank the full-sugar fizzy drinks ate much fewer chicken drumsticks than the team on the diet fizzy drinks. And in the very first of the above 3 links I posted it states: "..artificial sweeteners have not even been proven to aid in weight loss. The opposite is actually true. A 10-year study by researchers at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio showed that those who drank two or more diet sodas a day had a 500% greater increase in waist size."

Unless you are one of the rare individuals who suffers from Phenylketonuria, then aspartame is perfectly safe.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671
Acute, subacute and chronic toxicity studies with aspartame, and its decomposition products, conducted in mice, rats, hamsters and dogs have consistently found no adverse effect of aspartame with doses up to at least 4000 mg/kg bw/day. Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior. Epidemiological studies on aspartame include several case-control studies and one well-conducted prospective epidemiological study with a large cohort, in which the consumption of aspartame was measured. The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.

And Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

And here are the results from a randomised clinical trial by the AJCN regarding artificial sweeteners and weight gain, published this year: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/97/3/604.short
It starts off by saying: Little is understood about the effect of increased consumption of low-calorie sweeteners in diet beverages on dietary patterns and energy intake.
Which I take to mean, this is still very much in the theory stage, and far from being proven.

cassius_west · 19-05-2013, 20:03

Quote:

Unless you are one of the rare individuals who suffers from Phenylketonuria, then aspartame is perfectly safe.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671
Acute, subacute and chronic toxicity studies with aspartame, and its decomposition products, conducted in mice, rats, hamsters and dogs have consistently found no adverse effect of aspartame with doses up to at least 4000 mg/kg bw/day. Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior. Epidemiological studies on aspartame include several case-control studies and one well-conducted prospective epidemiological study with a large cohort, in which the consumption of aspartame was measured. The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.

And Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

And here are the results from a randomised clinical trial by the AJCN regarding artificial sweeteners and weight gain, published this year: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/97/3/604.short
It starts off by saying: Little is understood about the effect of increased consumption of low-calorie sweeteners in diet beverages on dietary patterns and energy intake.
Which I take to mean, this is still very much in the theory stage, and far from being proven.

Interesting. In fact I'm glad. I went through a phase of drinking diet drinks about 4/5 years ago and drank them for about a year, so it's nice to know they didn't do me any harm! Just goes to show you can't always believe what you read and I guess that many of the articles are based on outdated information. But what about the 10 year study I posted above? How do you read that?

epicurian · 19-05-2013, 20:31

Quote:

Interesting. In fact I'm glad. I went through a phase of drinking diet drinks about 4/5 years ago and drank them for about a year, so it's nice to know they didn't do me any harm! Just goes to show you can't always believe what you read and I guess that many of the articles are based on outdated information. But what about the 10 year study I posted above? How do you read that?

Correlation does not equal causation, is all I can say. I'm not at all saying that it's out of the realm of possibility, I'm just saying there's no real proof as of yet. Even that ten year study doesn't say why diet drinks might play a role in weight gain.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/d...so-fast?page=2
See: The Research Part 2: The Observational Studies

Johnnys Arcade · 19-05-2013, 23:15

Quote:

Believe me, I would. I have the same trouble sometimes! Can't stand sweeteners either.

:

Glad to see I am not alone!

All I am asking for is a sweetener free soft drink.....

grimtales1 · 20-05-2013, 09:26

Quote:

I might have guessed it would be disgusting. It has now gone the same way as Lilt,Fanta & Tango to name just a few.

I used to love Lilt, I always thought Tango tasted fine

Annoyed if they changed Sprite though

manickangaroo · 20-05-2013, 10:28

Quote: