Diet Coke with antioxidants??! Watch

Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#41
Report 11 years ago
#41
(Original post by Tufts)
Explain.
Trust me you would know about it if you had it, most PKU sufferers eat nasty sludge to prevent its effects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylketonuria
0
reply
burningnun
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report 11 years ago
#42
(Original post by Tufts)
Explain.
Phenylalanine is not dangerous unless you have PKU.
Aspartic acid is not dangerous.
In doses you get from aspartame, methanol is not dangerous. If it is, then a lot of other things are dangerous. But it isn't.

What else do you need me to explain?
0
reply
DancinBallerina
Badges: 20
#43
Report 11 years ago
#43
(Original post by Fluent in Lies)
To be fair though, everything has been linked with cancer.
Yea I have to agree with you on that.
0
reply
burningnun
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report 11 years ago
#44
I should clarify. It's safe in phenylketonuric heterozygotes, but not homozygotes, IIRC.
0
reply
~Kirsty~
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#45
Report 11 years ago
#45
PKU is an unfortunate condition - i wouldn't wish on anyone. Many foods are restricted not just aspartame.
0
reply
Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#46
Report 11 years ago
#46
(Original post by burningnun)
I should clarify. It's safe in phenylketonuric heterozygotes, but not homozygotes, IIRC.
Heterozygotes dont have the condition though, they are just carriers.
0
reply
~Kirsty~
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#47
Report 11 years ago
#47
I was going to say that - but couldn't be bothered to state the obvious...
0
reply
burningnun
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 11 years ago
#48
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2002 Apr;35(2 Pt 2): S1-93. Related Articles, Links

Aspartame: review of safety.

Butchko HH, Stargel WW, Comer CP, Mayhew DA, Benninger C, Blackburn GL, de Sonneville LM, Geha RS, Hertelendy Z, Koestner A, Leon AS, Liepa GU, McMartin KE, Mendenhall CL, Munro IC, Novotny EJ, Renwick AG, Schiffman SS, Schomer DL, Shaywitz BA, Spiers PA, Tephly TR, Thomas JA, Trefz FK.

Medical and Scientific Affairs, The NutraSweet Company, Mt Prospect, Illinois 60056, USA. [email protected] m

Over 20 years have elapsed since aspartame was approved by regulatory agencies as a sweetener and flavor enhancer. The safety of aspartame and its metabolic constituents was established through extensive toxicology studies in laboratory animals, using much greater doses than people could possibly consume. Its safety was further confirmed through studies in several human subpopulations, including healthy infants, children, adolescents, and adults; obese individuals; diabetics; lactating women; and individuals heterozygous (PKUH) for the genetic disease phenylketonuria (PKU) who have a decreased ability to metabolize the essential amino acid, phenylalanine. Several scientific issues continued to be raised after approval, largely as a concern for theoretical toxicity from its metabolic components--the amino acids, aspartate and phenylalanine, and methanol--even though dietary exposure to these components is much greater than from aspartame. Nonetheless, additional research, including evaluations of possible associations between aspartame and headaches, seizures, behavior, cognition, and mood as well as allergic-type reactions and use by potentially sensitive subpopulations, has continued after approval. These findings are reviewed here. The safety testing of aspartame has gone well beyond that required to evaluate the safety of a food additive. When all the research on aspartame, including evaluations in both the premarketing and postmarketing periods, is examined as a whole, it is clear that aspartame is safe, and there are no unresolved questions regarding its safety under conditions of intended use.

-------

The PKU gene shows incomplete dominance. Heterozygotes show the condition but not on a clinical level. This study also shows how safe it is, by the way.

(Original post by ~Kirsty~)
I was going to say that - but couldn't be bothered to state the obvious...
What obvious?
0
reply
tinkerbellejess
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 11 years ago
#49
(Original post by SylverStrike)
I tried it because it was in a smaller bottle, and I didn't want much to drink anyway. I thought it tasted just like normal coke, to be honest.
:ditto: I got it when it was going cheap (before they put it up to the same price of the other bottles!) and though it tasted the same. I get it sometimes if it's in the shop. I just figured the antioxidants can't really do me much harm.
0
reply
~Kirsty~
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#50
Report 11 years ago
#50
(Original post by burningnun)
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2002 Apr;35(2 Pt 2): S1-93. Related Articles, Links

Aspartame: review of safety.

Butchko HH, Stargel WW, Comer CP, Mayhew DA, Benninger C, Blackburn GL, de Sonneville LM, Geha RS, Hertelendy Z, Koestner A, Leon AS, Liepa GU, McMartin KE, Mendenhall CL, Munro IC, Novotny EJ, Renwick AG, Schiffman SS, Schomer DL, Shaywitz BA, Spiers PA, Tephly TR, Thomas JA, Trefz FK.

Medical and Scientific Affairs, The NutraSweet Company, Mt Prospect, Illinois 60056, USA. [email protected] m

Over 20 years have elapsed since aspartame was approved by regulatory agencies as a sweetener and flavor enhancer. The safety of aspartame and its metabolic constituents was established through extensive toxicology studies in laboratory animals, using much greater doses than people could possibly consume. Its safety was further confirmed through studies in several human subpopulations, including healthy infants, children, adolescents, and adults; obese individuals; diabetics; lactating women; and individuals heterozygous (PKUH) for the genetic disease phenylketonuria (PKU) who have a decreased ability to metabolize the essential amino acid, phenylalanine. Several scientific issues continued to be raised after approval, largely as a concern for theoretical toxicity from its metabolic components--the amino acids, aspartate and phenylalanine, and methanol--even though dietary exposure to these components is much greater than from aspartame. Nonetheless, additional research, including evaluations of possible associations between aspartame and headaches, seizures, behavior, cognition, and mood as well as allergic-type reactions and use by potentially sensitive subpopulations, has continued after approval. These findings are reviewed here. The safety testing of aspartame has gone well beyond that required to evaluate the safety of a food additive. When all the research on aspartame, including evaluations in both the premarketing and postmarketing periods, is examined as a whole, it is clear that aspartame is safe, and there are no unresolved questions regarding its safety under conditions of intended use.

-------

The PKU gene shows incomplete dominance. Heterozygotes show the condition but not on a clinical level. This study also shows how safe it is, by the way.



What obvious?
PKU is a recessive disorder -- few heterozygotes have any symptoms, nor need any treatment. Some do, but these are the minority.
0
reply
burningnun
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report 11 years ago
#51
(Original post by ~Kirsty~)
PKU is a recessive disorder -- few heterozygotes have any symptoms, nor need any treatment. Some do, but these are the minority.
They may not show symptoms, but that is not to say "they don't have the condition, they are just carriers." If phenylalanine doses from aspartame were dangerous for normal people, they would definitely be dangerous for PKUHs. However, they are not.
0
reply
Bennyboy65
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#52
Report 11 years ago
#52
Its just another company that is trying - failing but trying - to promote it's already unhealthy product as a health one! Well done Coca-cola you convinced us all!! *sarcasm*
0
reply
Sakapaka
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#53
Report 11 years ago
#53
It also has sugar, It has 0.1 because of the green tea. It dose not state this on the back.
0
reply
20083
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report 11 years ago
#54
(Original post by punktopia)
Personally I stick to normal coke. I find it amusing when people drink "diet" soft drinks, especially if they're leading otherwise healthy lifestyles. IMO a pint of beer is healthier than a pint of coke/insert soft drink here.
But, diet Coke tastes nice. Especially on a hot day with loads of ice in it. It's not supposed to be healthy, or anything. In fact, it has no nutritional benefits at all (and that's all they are trying to do with this "plus" drink). With normal Coke you end up thirstier than before you drank it, and you can feel it rotting your teeth as you drink it.
0
reply
Sidhe
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#55
Report 11 years ago
#55
People mention that taking antioxidant supplements is a bit of a placebo. Here's why though in case anyone's interested:

The antioxidant myth: a medical fairy tale

Spoiler:
Show
In the 1980s, however, a potential weapon against free radical damage appeared on the horizon. Scientists had known for a long time that people whose diets are rich in fruits and vegetables have a lower incidence of heart disease, diabetes, dementia, stroke and certain types of cancer - the very diseases that are associated with free radical damage. Now there was an explanation. Fruits and vegetables are a rich source of antioxidants that can neutralise free radicals by donating electrons to them.

Green plants are full of antioxidants for good reason. They are especially vulnerable to oxidative stress since they produce pure oxygen during photosynthesis. To protect themselves they manufacture an assortment of potent antioxidants.

And so a hypothesis was born: dietary antioxidants are free-radical sponges that can stave off the diseases of old age. It was a great idea. "Putting two and two together, scientists assumed that these antioxidants were protective, and that taking them as supplements or in fortified foods should decrease oxidative damage and diminish disease," says Halliwell, who pioneered research into free radicals and disease. "It was simple: we said free radicals are bad, antioxidants are good."

The concept helped spawn a colossal supplements industry. According to the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), more than half of US adults take some form of vitamin or mineral supplement at a total cost of $23 billion a year. The bewildering range of supplements on the shelves makes it hard to say how much of this expenditure goes on antioxidants, but the NIH says it is probably a "large proportion". And their popularity just keeps on growing. SPINS, a market research firm based in San Francisco, estimates that the antioxidant market has grown by 18 per cent in the past year alone.

The best known antioxidants are vitamin E (also known by its chemical name tocopherol), vitamin C, and two broad classes of plant chemicals called polyphenols (including flavonoids) and carotenoids (including beta carotene and lycopene). Most supplements touted as antioxidants contain at least one of these, often as a pure chemical and sometimes as a concentrated plant extract.

Since the early 1990s scientists have been putting these compounds through their paces, using double-blind randomised controlled trials - the gold standard for medical intervention studies. Time and again, however, the supplements failed to pass the test. True, they knock the wind out of free radicals in a test tube. But once inside the human body, they seem strangely powerless. Not only are they bad at preventing oxidative damage, they can even make things worse. Many scientists are now concluding that, at best, they are a waste of time and money. At worst they could be harmful.

The first antioxidant to produce disappointing results was beta carotene. Once a star among supplements, beta carotene pills were recommended to smokers to protect them against lung cancer. This was largely based on the observation, made in the 1970s, that people who ate a lot of carrots - which contain large quantities of beta carotene - had some protection against cancer.

In 1992 researchers at the US National Cancer Institute set about testing beta carotene. They recruited more than 18,000 people at high risk of developing lung cancer, either because they smoked or had been exposed to asbestos, and gave around half of them beta carotene supplements. The trial was supposed to run for six years, but the researchers pulled the plug two-thirds of the way through after discovering, to their surprise and horror, that those taking supplements were faring worse than the controls. Their lung cancer rate was 28 per cent higher, and the overall death rate was up 17 per cent. "It was a shock. It not only did no good but had the potential to do harm," Halliwell says.

The researchers couldn't be sure that these increases were not caused by chance, and beta carotene capsules are still widely sold as an antioxidant. Further trials, though, have strengthened the evidence that beta carotene supplements not only fail to protect people against cancer but can also increase the risk of lung cancer in smokers. In May of this year an expert panel convened by the NIH concluded that there was no evidence to recommend beta carotene supplements for the general population, and strong evidence to recommend that smokers avoid it.

It's a similar story with the world's most popular antioxidant. Vitamin E shot to fame in the early 1990s, after two large studies involving more than 127,000 people in total found that those with a diet high in vitamin E were significantly less likely to develop cardiovascular disease. The first study followed 87,245 female nurses for eight years; it found that the top 20 per cent with respect to vitamin E consumption had a 41 per cent lower incidence of cardiovascular disease than the bottom 20 per cent (New England Journal of Medicine, vol 328, p 1444). The second study, involving 39,910 male health professionals, found a similar reduction in heart disease risk (New England Journal of Medicine, vol 328, p 1450).

The researchers, based at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health, even had a plausible mechanism. Evidence was emerging that one of the causes of heart disease was free radical damage to LDLs, tiny packages of lipid and protein that circulate in the bloodstream, delivering fatty acids to cells. It turned out that adding vitamin E to blood samples in the test tube made LDL more resistant to oxidation. Perhaps this was how vitamin E prevented heart disease. "At the biochemical level, the rationale sounded so good - at that time," says Roland Stocker, a biochemist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.

Use of vitamin E supplements soared. In 1990, almost nobody took vitamin E; by the end of the decade an estimated 23 million US citizens were knocking back daily doses.

On the back of these positive results, other researchers set up large studies using vitamin E supplements. The results, however, have been almost universally disappointing. Only one experiment - the Cambridge heart antioxidant study (CHAOS) - found a positive effect, a 77 per cent reduced risk of heart attack. Several others found no protective effect and one even concluded that vitamin E increased the risk of heart failure.


Link.

It appears that taking antioxidants in isolation has limited or no effect. Sorry folks it really is a debatable subject, you'll have to get more fruit and drink more green tea instead of drinking soft drinks with added Zorbium +® or popping pills.
0
reply
SuperSam_Fantastiche
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#56
Report 11 years ago
#56
(Original post by SillyFencer)
But, diet Coke tastes nice. Especially on a hot day with loads of ice in it.

...

With normal Coke you end up thirstier than before you drank it, and you can feel it rotting your teeth as you drink it.
My sentiments exactly :eek::eek:

Diet Coke is just so much nicer!
0
reply
Brightstar
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 11 years ago
#57
(Original post by burningnun)
Aspartame is only dangerous if you suffer from PKU.
Aspartame is dangerous to anyone if you have it in excess
0
reply
thepinkpowerranger
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#58
Report 11 years ago
#58
(Original post by Brightstar)
Aspartame is dangerous to anyone if you have it in excess
I remembering reading somewhere a few year ago that you have to have about 10 cans a day to actually have enough to cause harm.

Green tea is lovely! In Asia they have all different varieties in the chill cabinet... pomegranate (sp) green tea ftw!
0
reply
burningnun
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#59
Report 11 years ago
#59
(Original post by thepinkpowerranger)
I remembering reading somewhere a few year ago that you have to have about 10 cans a day to actually have enough to cause harm.
This sounds about right. Plenty of people have taken it in "excess" (more than recommended) and been fine, I've read their testimonials. Funnily enough I haven't read anyone's experience who has been in any way shape or form harmed by aspartame. This is unsurprising considering posts such as the one two above are full of ****.
0
reply
Music Is My Boyfriend
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#60
Report 11 years ago
#60
It's so nice! And makes me feel less guilty about how much diet coke I drink
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (94)
24.54%
No (289)
75.46%

Watched Threads

View All