Why diet soda is bad - Wikipedia keto diet
(Coupon: EoQzjbMWNC)
Updated: May 12,2023
This Is What Happens to Your Body When You Drink Diet Soda.
Drinking diet soda can save major calories. But there are some surprising things that can happen to your body if you opt for this type of pop.
Lauren is an award-winning registered dietitian, author of three books and all-around lover of good food. After graduating with a bachelor's degree in food science and human nutrition and a master's degree in clinical nutrition, Lauren has worked in various nutrition-related settings, most currently writing nutrition-related content for online outlets including Verywell Health, PopSugar, The Kitchn, and EatingWell. Additionally, she manages the Instagram page @LaurenLovesNutrition, where people can receive evidence-based nutrition tips and updates.
Published on June 15, 2022.
Reviewed by Dietitian.
Emily Lachtrupp is a registered dietitian experienced in nutritional counseling, recipe analysis and meal plans. She's worked with clients who struggle with diabetes, weight loss, digestive issues and more. In her spare time, you can find her enjoying all that Vermont has to offer with her family and her dog, Winston.
Diet soda is a go-to for people who love the taste of regular soda but can do without the sugar and calories. An average can of regular cola may contain a whopping 37 grams of sugar, and consuming too much sugar is linked to outcomes like obesity and poor heart health. So it makes sense that you may seek out a sugar-free alternative.
But while drinking diet soda does help people reduce their sugar intake, this simple act can also expose a person to other ingredients that may be linked to some health problems.
If you are a diet soda drinker and want to know what effects this habit can have on your body, read on to learn all of the details.
Getty Images / Surasak Pumdontri / EyeEm.
What Is Diet Soda?
Diet soda, also known as diet pop or a zero sugar soft drink, is a drink made with most of the same ingredients that you will find in regular soda. But, instead of leaning on sugar, corn syrup or another caloric sweetener for a sweet taste, diet soda takes advantage of alternative low- or no-calorie sugar substitutes, such as aspartame, sucralose and stevia.
Like regular soda, these drinks can contain artificial coloring (e.g., caramel coloring), artificial flavors, added acidic ingredients and preservatives. Certain diet soda variations may also contain caffeine. And, like regular sodas, diet soft drinks are essentially void of anything of nutritional value.
What Happens to Your Body When You Drink Diet Soda?
Every food or drink you include in your diet can affect your health. From orange juice consumption being linked to immune support to a cup of tea being linked to reduced inflammation, your dietary choices can profoundly impact your overall health.
And while you might lean on diet soda for that distinct sweet effervescence without worrying about loading up with sugar, doing so may have other effects on your health that you may not realize. Here are six other effects (positive and negative) that can happen when you sip diet sodas on the regular.
1. You may experience tooth erosion or discoloration.
We've all been told that eating too much sugar can wreak havoc on dental health, as excessive amounts of sugar are linked to an increased risk of dental cavities. While it is true that skipping sugary soda can help you keep cavity development at bay, reaching for a can of diet soda can open your chompers up to other issues.
"The acidity in certain types of diet soda can lead to tooth erosion," according to Keith Wolfe, D.M.D., a dentist based in Greenacres, Florida. He explained that, over time, tooth erosion can result in pain and sensitivity.
In addition to bathing your mouth in an acidic environment, some varieties of diet soda contain coloring that may stain teeth. "Over time, drinking excessive amounts of diet soda made with caramel coloring may result in teeth turning yellow," explained Jack Hirschfeld, D.D.S., a clinical instructor at the Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine's School of Dental Medicine. "The combination of the acidic environment the soda creates along with the food dye can increase a person's chances of experiencing tooth discoloration," he added.
2. You may lose weight.
The average American consumes at least one sugary drink every day. For many people the simple act of switching from a calorie-containing sweetened beverage to a calorie-free one will create a calorie deficit that may help them lose weight. Replacing one can of regular soda with a diet version each day can save a person approximately 150 calories per day.
According to data published in JAMA Network Open , swapping out sugar-sweetened beverages for drinks made with sugar alternatives, such as diet soda, is associated with reduced body weight, body mass index (BMI), percentage of body fat and liver fat levels, specifically among people with overweight or obesity and those who are at risk for developing diabetes.
Other data showed that, among people who are overweight or have obesity, drinking 24 ounces of diet soda every day for one year resulted in an average weight loss of almost 14 pounds. That was compared to another group who drank the same amount of water every day for a year and only experienced an average of 5.5 pounds of weight loss.
Yet, some observational data does not show a positive link between drinking diet soda and weight loss, and some research suggests that artificially sweetened drinks are associated with a greater risk of obesity. More studies are needed before we can have a definitive recommendation.
3. You may have increased risk for heart disease.
Whether regular or diet, research suggests that making soda sipping a habit is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes (a condition that increases your risk of heart disease as well) and death from any cause, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis in the journal Nutrients . It's possible that the sweet taste but zero calories from the drink degrades insulin function over time, perhaps contributing to poor metabolic health. Though the authors say that more high-quality evidence is needed on diet drinks to reach firm conclusions, they advise limiting both sugar-sweetened and diet versions for your best health.
4. You may be better able to manage your blood sugar.
The artificial sweeteners in diet soda do not raise blood glucose levels in the short term, like sugar does. So if you drink a can of diet soda, you shouldn't experience a blood sugar spike like you might if you drank the same amount of regular soda. What's more, if switching to diet soda helps you lose weight, achieving a healthier weight can also help you improve blood sugar control.
Some research suggests that people who drink sugary drinks are more likely to develop insulin resistance and prediabetes, but people who consumed diet soda are not. Ultimately, if you have diabetes or prediabetes, talk to your health care team, particularly a registered dietitian who specializes in diabetes care, about the best way for you to manage your blood sugar.
5. You may have trouble sleeping.
If you opt for diet soda that contains caffeine, you may have trouble getting some much-needed shut-eye at night, especially if you are enjoying it close to bedtime.
One can of Diet Coke contains 46 milligrams of caffeine. That's less than a cup of coffee, but everyone has a different sensitivity to caffeine, and if you are having trouble sleeping at night, you may want to evaluate how much caffeine you're consuming during the day and at what times. The good news is that there are some caffeine-free diet soda options that you can sip on without experiencing this effect.
6. You may have weaker bones.
While diet soda is void of calories and sugar, certain varieties can contain phosphorus in the form of phosphoric acid. This mineral can play a positive role in bone health, assuming that another key bone-health supporting nutrient, calcium, is consumed in adequate amounts. But, consuming copious amounts of phosphorus (which can happen if you overdo it on the soda) can negatively affect the calcium/phosphorus ratio in your body, ultimately increasing the risk of experiencing decreased bone mineral density. Opting for caffeinated sodas may worsen your bone health even further, thanks to this stimulant's negative effect on bone health.
If you are concerned about your phosphoric acid intake, choose clear diet soda instead of classic colas, as clear versions are not typically made with this mineral compound.
Bottom Line.
For many years, diet soda has been a go-to beverage solution for sweet and bubbly drink lovers. And while there aren't many drinks that can satisfy like an ice-cold glass of diet pop can on a warm summer day, it is important to know that overdoing your diet soda consumption doesn't come without potential risk.
While this drink can be a nice once-in-a-while solution for people who have a sweet drink craving and want to do without the added sugars, consuming liberal amounts of this sweet drink may lead to some unwanted health effects in the long run. Balancing out your diet soda consumption with good old-fashioned water and more nutrient-dense drinks like 100% juice and milk will help you meet your nutritional needs while adding enjoyment, too.
Talk : Ketogenic diet.
See monotrophic diet for the carnivore diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] See the categories listed at the bottom of the (article) page, where you can explore other diets. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
"See Low-Carbohydrate Diet" Edit.
Latest comment: 9 months ago 2 comments 2 people in discussion.
The Low-Carbohydrate Diet that we're supposed to refer to for the weight-loss version of the ketogenic diet refers directly back to this page. So why not add a section here, with an opportunity to cite medical discussions of the use of the ketogenic diet for weight loss? As of now, that opportunity is lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbohydrate_diet#Ketogenic_diet.
Kortoso (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] The focus of this article is the dietary epilepsy treatment. We are a hyperlinked encyclopaedia, so the "opportunity" to discuss diets for weight loss that may be ketogenic can be fully explored in another article. -- Colin° Talk 08:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Ketogenic diets in other applications Edit.
Latest comment: 4 months ago 23 comments 5 people in discussion.
Look at the sources I added. They specifically describe ketogenic diets, not generic low carb. Steven Walling • talk 03:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Not the medical ketogenic diet; the term has come to be used generically. Also, please see WP:FAOWN and discuss before reinstating content. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] So what article describes ketogenic diets in a non medical setting? There isn't one. Steven Walling • talk 03:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] I think there is, but Colin can better explain which is which. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] Actually, it's built in to the edit notice when you edit the page, but it's at the very bottom and probably gets missed very often.
This article is not about weight loss and body-building diets ; it is about the physician-ordered medical nutrition therapy used to treat severe, refractory epilepsy in children by producing very high levels of ketone bodies. Non-medical diets that encourage moderate levels of ketone production are described in the article low-carbohydrate diet.
Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Yeah for context, I added it because the scientific reviews--one of which is literally titled "Ketogenic low-CHO, high-fat diet: the future of elite endurance sport?"--are smart enough to discuss the difference between ketogenic and non-ketogenic LCHF diets and both have been studied fairly extensively. So the sources aren't about weight loss and body building, they're real science about other applications. Steven Walling • talk 03:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] Yes, but not this specific medical diet, which has to be used under strict medical supervision. Colin will explain better (or you can read through the article if you'd rather not wait for him to show up-- I'm off for the night!). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] Ok so then the title of the article needs to be changed, to something like "Ketogenic diet (medicine)" or "Ketogenic diets in medicine", because there is clearly scientific literature discussing real application of a ketogenic diet outside medicine, so the flat title is misleading. Just saying "ketogenic diet" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "a diet that supplies large amounts of fats, moderate amounts of proteins, and minimal amounts of carbohydrates and that is undertaken for weight loss or to control seizures in treatment-resistant epilepsy" so you can see how the generic title is deceptive. I understand wanting to keep medical information separate from weight loss fad info. Steven Walling • talk 04:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] There are rules about article titles, and for 100 years the dominant subject of "ketogenic diet" was as an epilepsy treatment mainly used in children. Recent years have shown a high interest in related diets for weight loss or sports in adults. There's not really a degree of overlap between those studying and writing about the former and the latter, hence Wikipedia handles them in separate articles too. The "other uses" section exists because (usually neurologists) writing about the KD in epilepsy do briefly note the research into that diet for other neurological disorders. Hence it has WP:WEIGHT here. There isn't really any literature-weight to suggest that when writing about an epilepsy diet, authors also digress into the latest research on sports nutrition or on weight loss. You and I can see an overlap, but I can also see an overlap between a saline drip and my gran's salty chicken and leek soup. Both will provide the body salt and water nutrients, but the former needs to be sterile and is used in sick people, and the latter merely warmed up and served to anyone. -- Colin° Talk 10:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] We are writing for here and now, not for 100 years ago. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia for doctors or people with medical conditions, and the English dictionary disagrees with your definition of scope of the term. Steven Walling • talk 15:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] Our encyclopaedia articles are not written such that they cover all possible meanings of a term in one article. I suggest you read some of the MOS about article titles and scope. The content of articles is determined by what reliable sources write about, not by dictionary definitions, and reliable sources do not make a habit of writing about epilepsy treatments and sports nutrition at the same time. The point about 100 years is that there is a body of literature on the ketogenic diet for epilepsy that is huge and has endured and is still very much relevant. This isn't a historical treatment. I accept that some readers will encounter this article while expecting to read about weight loss or sports diets. That is not a unique problem, and I guess most people searching about "Apple" are interested in the tech company, not the fruit. We can't please everyone. There's more discussion about this in the archives. -- Colin° Talk 18:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] The preponderance of reliable source material most definitely does not justify zero coverage of non-medical diet interventions on the main article about ketogenic diets. Even just this one narrative review from 2020 in the Journal of Physiology notes that there is over 40 years of peer-reviewed research on the topic of ketogenic diets in sports nutrition. WP:TITLE clearly states that "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles" so when there are decades of peer-reviewed studies (not to mention lay literature) with the term "ketogenic diet" in reference to non-medical interventions your argument for zero coverage doesn't hold water, unless the article is titled specifically in reference to medical treatment. Steven Walling • talk 18:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] You aren't looking at the right thing. There are 46 years of literature about Apple Inc. and yet weirdly there is zero coverage (beyond the hatnote) of computers and mobile phones in our apple article. This is because when reliable sources write about round fruit, they don't write paragraphs about little black rectangles with rounded corners. It isn't the quantity of articles that counts, but the fact that they are independent of each other. If you think there is merit in expanding this article to discuss all diets that are wholly or partly ketogenic, and used for any purpose in any population group, then we need to know the literature that actually does that? This would be literature that thinks there is a core subject of "ketogenic diet" that is worth talking about in all its various forms. The closest I've found is Ketogenic Diet and Metabolic Therapies: Expanded Roles in Health and Disease which spends 9 pages out of 408 talking about sports nutrition (and 13 pages on diabetes). The rest is neurology and nearly all of that epilepsy. That's one book. Pretty much everything else I've seen is solely neurological with anything other than epilepsy as a briefly mentioned research matter, or similarly focused on sports or on weight loss or life extension or recipes or whatever. Merging topics that the reliable sources keep distinct is bad for many reasons but a big one is original research. It makes it too likely that we'd claim something was true of "ketogenic diets" but in fact was only true of one kind of ketogenic diet in one kind of population group. Currently, this article is not the "main topic" on ketogenic diet because the literature does not support the idea of there being a main topic. -- Colin° Talk 20:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] "Currently, this article is not the "main topic" on ketogenic diet because the literature does not support the idea of there being a main topic" Right, which is why this should be specifically titled to refer to "(medicine)" or "in medicine" and then have a "Ketogenic and low carbohydrate diets" article about non-medical applications. I agree the split makes sense, but what doesn't is the current article title that reads like it's generic. Steven Walling • talk 03:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] We do not always add qualifiers after an article title just because there are subjects that could be in scope for that title. Please read the MOS on this. There is a reason apple (fruit) or Houston, Texas are redirects. Neither are the "main topic" on all things named "apple" or all dwellings called "Houston". -- Colin° Talk 07:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] You don't need a qualifier for apple because the scope of the article matches the general understanding of the term. That's not the case here. The scope of the article is a specific medical application that's covered a lot in medical literature and isn't actually the commonly understood definition. Steven Walling • talk 08:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] And what do you think is the "commonly understood definition"? Could we write an article for that? Perhaps your view is influenced by how you got here (diets for exercise). See Wikipedia:Disambiguation. There isn't an algorithm for this. All choices have costs and benefits. While adding a qualifier to the name might appeal to your desire for precision, it has a cost in terms of searching and linking to this page, and it isn't like we have significant alternative articles like "ketogenic diet (sports medicine)" or "ketogenic diet (weight loss)" or "ketogenic diet (wellness fad)" to link to. We do have Keto diet that is a DAB page and uses a common short form of the name, and despite all the interest in directing readers towards content about sports or weight loss uses of a "ketogenic diet", we don't have any significant content that has been written about it. I wonder why. -- Colin° Talk 10:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] The commonly defined meaning in sources is clearly "a diet that produces ketones" and there are various reasons why an individual would adhere to the diet. It's only your obsession with a focus on the medical application that excludes 100% of other ketogenic diet applications, not the source material. Steven Walling • talk 05:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] Perhaps revisit that remark ? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 07:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] I wonder if at this point we are going round in circles. The "source material" does not cover all diets that produce ketones. Each source covers one aspect of the diet, that those authors are "obsessed" about, not me. If there were books and books and articles and articles that each covered "a diet that produces ketones" as a whole topic and comprehensively discussed contrasted and compared all the different uses of such diets then sure, ketogenic diet could mirror that. But there aren't and so we don't. -- Colin° Talk 07:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] A literature search for reliable sources on "ketogenic diet" overwhelmingly returns articles on epilepsy and the conditions listed in the article under the heading "Other medical applications".[1] There is little of value to a featured article on "other applications". We can only write what can be verified by reliable sources. Until sources are found, which I doubt exist, there is indeed no point in "going round in circles", in my view. Graham Beards (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I'm a little confused by this. "Ketogenic diet (medical treatment for epilepsy)" and "Ketogenic diet (weight-loss intervention)" are the same actual diet, are they not? By contrast, "Apple (company)" and "Apple (fruit)" are completely different things. Or are they two different diets?
If they are the same food recommendations, then they are the same thing and surely belong in the same article? On the other hand, if they are different sets of food recommendations, then fair enough, they're not the same diet. —Ashley Y 05:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Ashley Y, there's some info in the FAQ at the top of the talk page. Yes they are more closely related than those two examples. They have some things in common but while both might seek very few carbs, they vary a lot on protein, which is typically high on a weight loss or body-builder diet (to make you feel full and slow release energy, or to build muscle) but set only at a "necessary for growth" level for the epilepsy diet. And clearly on one, the purpose is weight loss (or muscle gain) in a fully developed body, whereas on the the other, which is typically used in children, the aim is normal growth and the weight gain that goes with that. The biggest issue which keeps the articles from merging is that our sources do not (other than as an aside) talk about them together. So all the stuff here about how the diet is started, monitored, side effects, health benefits, are very much only drawn from medical practice and research on epilepsy diets. If we combined in the weight loss and body building (of which there are numerous variants) then we'd find it very hard to not mislead the reader in thinking some fact applied to that but which we only really know applies to very sick children with epilepsy. WP:SYNTH. -- Colin° Talk 12:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Infobox Edit.
Latest comment: 2 days ago 8 comments 4 people in discussion.
Testing for ketone bodies in urine.
I haven't found any previous discussions about adding an infobox in the archives. This is the only FA-class disease or therapy article connected to WikiProject Medicine that doesn't have an infobox, which makes it a bit unusual. On the other hand, there's no rule requiring one. Do we want an infobox at the top of this article? It could look something like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I think when the article was developed, many medical infoboxes looked like the one at Hepatorenal syndrome: a list of codes only a medical professional would care about (on a project no medical professional should trust to get codes from) and all external links. I'm not sure what the above example is offering the general reader. It is such a primary region of the article, I'm loathe to distract the reader with stuff that isn't jump-out-at-you vital and easy to describe. Our lead sentence is more lay-friendly than "Refractory paediatric epilepsy" and if you know what epilepsy is, then the outcome should be obvious. We know it is a dietary intervention from the article title and lead sentence already. The "complications" are listed in a take-it-or-leave-it form, rather than explaining their frequency or degree of seriousness. One might imagine stunted-growth could be dwarfism but is more subtle than that (and may resolve when the child comes off the diet). Btw, Water fluoridation doesn't have one either, though whether that is a medical therapy is up for debate. -- Colin° Talk 13:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] You are correct about the history of the infobox. I don't feel strongly either way myself. It's normal for disease articles to have an infobox, but it's not required. I don't think that infoboxes need to contain solely vital information. The contents I've mocked up here are just an example. A lot of them have little more than the specialty identified. I think, for this article, that the "Uses" line might help reinforce the not-about-the-fad-diet theme (as could the "Complications" list). WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] Yes, I thought the same about the "Uses". Graham Beards (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] The "not-about-the-fad-diet" is only really a problem with editors. Readers already get a hat note and the lead sentence is pretty clear what the topic is. And we have a FAQ for the editors, should any of them care to read it. I'm not keen to have either medical jargon (uses) or a frightening list of complications just to scare off the health fad folk and say "this is a serious medical intervention for a serious medical condition". I think that we have done everything we can to highlight to readers and editors what the scope is, without distracting readers who want to learn about this medical intervention. What we know is that editors who want this article to be about the fad diet, don't and won't care what the article says or what we write in a faq, because they either don't read it or think it is wrong. -- Colin° Talk 07:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] Do you think that infoboxes are distracting? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] You didn't ask me, but, yes. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] Yes but distraction isn't always bad, if the content is worth grabbing someone's attention for. Magazines frequently publish pictures and captions to grab a reader's attention and draw them to consider reading the body text. I can't think of any other publication aimed at general readers that would squander the real-estate at the top of the article to include a list of jargon terms and medical codes. -- Colin° Talk 19:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Why diet soda is bad - Wikipedia keto diet
Reference number: b46vNAtra9