Scientists Are Racing to Build a Better Diet Soda • Hacker News Board

Re: Scientists Are Racing to Build a Better Diet Soda

#61

Post by poulsbohemian » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 4:13 AM UTC

skywhopper wrote: post #48

For me, I see no real value in the 33%-less-sugar Stevia-sweetened drinks like Coca-Cola Life. To me, they taste distinctly unlike the full-calorie versions, but with 2/3 the sugar, they are still something I'd prefer to avoid. Maybe it's positioned for people who hate diet soda and have just enough willpower to avoid full-calorie soda, and need a little excuse to push them over to a drink that tastes somewhat better…

Thank you! I tried Coca-Cola Life last week on a whim and was disappointed in both the flavor and that it was still loaded with sugar (and thus calories). There is no taste to it other than sweet - none of the citrus, caramel, or other types of flavors you expect in a cola.

Re: Scientists Are Racing to Build a Better Diet Soda

#62

Post by coldtea » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 4:27 AM UTC

pohl wrote: post #54

psychometry wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You, too, have ignored my point about sugar being unhealthy. It's not the fact that soda tastes "sweet" or "syrupy"; it's the fact that it's loaded with calories from sugar.

Drink water.

That's the easy way out.

Re: Scientists Are Racing to Build a Better Diet Soda

#63

Post by AlexDanger » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 5:01 AM UTC

lfowles wrote: post #10

iLoch wrote: post #6

This is probably a crazy idea: drink less soda. When it comes to pop, I usually stick to cola - and when it's cola I'll never buy it unless it is made with real cane sugar. Boom, potential side effects of artificial sweeteners are gone, and the drink tastes way better. And just drink more water. Why is this so hard for people?

Some thoughts on why drinking water isn't more common: * No water cooler at the office * Tap water tastes funny * "Mocked" for drinking bottled water

>Tap water tastes funny

In Australia the tap water has very strict monitoring and is tested often. The water here tastes fine.

What is absolutely staggering is that bottled water is not monitored as strictly as tap water, yet costs about 1000x more. All those pictures of pristine waterfalls and bubbling springs are absolute bullshit. You are far more likely to get a hefty dose of chlorine or other containment from bottled water.

They are downright evil but kudos to the Coke marketing department. Who was the genius that pitched the idea of selling sub-standard water at 1000x the price of what we get from the tap? I'd have said its a ridiculous idea. Clearly I was wrong.

Personally, I use a soda-stream at home if I get a soda craving. Cheap, no health concerns, convenient and less impact on the environment. If I really feel I need some sugar I'll squeeze an orange into a litre of fizzy water. Still a bit of sugar but nothing compared to a coke.

Re: Scientists Are Racing to Build a Better Diet Soda

#64

Post by iLoch » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 6:51 AM UTC

maelk wrote: post #9

iLoch wrote: post #6

This is probably a crazy idea: drink less soda. When it comes to pop, I usually stick to cola - and when it's cola I'll never buy it unless it is made with real cane sugar. Boom, potential side effects of artificial sweeteners are gone, and the drink tastes way better. And just drink more water. Why is this so hard for people?

its like telling alcoholics to drink less alcohol

Sugar does not have the same level of addictiveness as alcohol, so not really.

Re: Scientists Are Racing to Build a Better Diet Soda

#65

Post by iLoch » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 6:53 AM UTC

primroot wrote: post #33

iLoch wrote: post #6

This is probably a crazy idea: drink less soda. When it comes to pop, I usually stick to cola - and when it's cola I'll never buy it unless it is made with real cane sugar. Boom, potential side effects of artificial sweeteners are gone, and the drink tastes way better. And just drink more water. Why is this so hard for people?

Easy. Just privatize all drinkable water so that people have to buy it. That way drinking water will provide the same economic benefits of drinking soda.

Not easy but I'm sure it's being worked on.

Re: Scientists Are Racing to Build a Better Diet Soda

#66

Post by iLoch » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 6:56 AM UTC

skywhopper wrote: post #46

iLoch wrote: post #6

This is probably a crazy idea: drink less soda. When it comes to pop, I usually stick to cola - and when it's cola I'll never buy it unless it is made with real cane sugar. Boom, potential side effects of artificial sweeteners are gone, and the drink tastes way better. And just drink more water. Why is this so hard for people?

Most people don't have your iron willpower or particular sweetener preferences.

I dunno, I used to drink a lot of pop and juice. The easiest way to stop is to just start drinking something else, since you're usually only drinking pop in the first place because you're thirsty.

Re: Scientists Are Racing to Build a Better Diet Soda

#67

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 10:41 AM UTC

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #58

fluidcruft wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, this is completely ridiculous. You are literally saying that since the article you chose to cite does not support your argument, that I should instead go argue with the author of the peer-reviewed journal article? Really?!? That's the best defense of your argument you can muster?

I didn't even make an argument. I posted a few links to peer-reviewed research about the effects of artificial sweeteners. HN poster kmicklas, way up there made a post referring to "unfounded fears in the public" about artificial sweeteners. The links I posted are enough to dismiss the notion that artificial sweeteners can pose no health risk(s).

You can't throw a file full of non-evidence on the table and say that it justifies people being wary of artificial sweeteners.

Re: Scientists Are Racing to Build a Better Diet Soda

#68

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 10:59 AM UTC

_JamesA_ wrote: post #34

iLoch wrote: post #6

This is probably a crazy idea: drink less soda. When it comes to pop, I usually stick to cola - and when it's cola I'll never buy it unless it is made with real cane sugar. Boom, potential side effects of artificial sweeteners are gone, and the drink tastes way better. And just drink more water. Why is this so hard for people?

"When it comes to pop, I usually stick to cola..." As someone not from the Northeastern USA what does that even mean? Pop, cola, soda and more regularly "coke" (the word not the brand) are all used to refer to soft drinks in general.

Where are you that "cola" is used as a generic? I've never heard of that one before. Pop, soda, and (sigh) "coke" I've heard of plenty of times.

Re: Scientists Are Racing to Build a Better Diet Soda

#69

Post by sp332 » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 12:21 PM UTC

dhimes wrote: post #51

sp332 wrote: post #7

Aspartame gives me headaches, but I like the taste of sucralose and ace-K (acesulfame potassium) together. They help to cover each others' funny aftertaste. But Pepsi One is discontinued, and I can't find any other colas like that.

oh man pepsi one is discontinued? Crap! That was my go-to diet cola.

Yeah, middle of last year.

Re: Scientists Are Racing to Build a Better Diet Soda

#70

Post by dbbolton » Fri, Mar 20, 2015, 3:57 PM UTC

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #59

dbbolton wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>artificial sweeteners stimulate appetite and promote weight gain Just like all studies seeking to link artificial sweeteners to weight gain, it's a correlational argument that is not specific to artificial sweeteners. The "neurobiology of food reward" is the exact same for sugar and artificial sweeteners unless you happen to be purposefully depriving yourself of calories, in which case the sweetener cannot be blamed…

>If you could demonstrate in controlled conditions that (ideally more than 13[1]) people who eat and exercise in moderation suddenly start gaining weight when artificial sweeteners are added to their diet (or losing weight when they are removed), it might be an interesting finding. I'm not into psych/medical research, but even in the hard sciences it is often difficult to have enough data to point to a conclusion so…

>difficult to have enough data to point to a conclusion so unambiguously as to be obvious

You are right, but that also cuts both ways, which is why we rely on consensus. And the consensus of the international scientific community (not just the FDA or any such organization by itself) is that artificial sweeteners are safe.

You are also right that CoI is not always a black-and-white issue, but that doesn't mean suspicions should be withheld from regulatory bodies and the publishing journal(s). Writing an OpEd on a personal webpage is not the most effective means to expose CoI, and, more importantly, such articles do not immediately overrule all consensus.

If you really believe that the majority of studies involving the safety of artificial sweeteners are wrong, the best course of action is to demonstrate it empirically by duplicating the experiments and coming up with different data.

Put together a reasonable paper, and other researchers will take note of it-- even if you believe the conspiracy theory that all major journals are puppets of the food industry. Ultimately, the data will trump the politics.