STOP with the diet drinks: Experts warn even sugar-free sodas are linked to weight gain, dementia and strokes

• The American Heart Association released the science advisory on Monday 
• Experts noted that sugar-free sodas have been found to increase the risk of weight gain and type 2 diabetes
• They add that diet drinks should be used only as a transitional beverage between sugar-laden drinks and plain or unsweetened flavored water

By MARY KEKATOS FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 18:21 BST, 31 July 2018 | UPDATED: 20:19 BST, 31 July 2018

Drinking diet soda is just as bad for you as having a regular soda, a new report has claimed.  

Even sugar-free drinks are raising the risk of weight gain, type 2 diabetes, dementia and stroke among US adults, the panel of doctors and researchers has warned.

They said that children are at an even greater risk of disease because consuming diet drinks at such a young age can create behaviors that follow them throughout their lives.

With obesity rates continuing to balloon in the US - and diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers following these trends - the experts say it is vital now more than ever to lay down the diet sodas to help curb the growing epidemic.

+1

Experts have warned Americans in a new advisory to stop consuming diet drink due to several studies showing a link to weight gain, and an increased risk of dementia and stroke

The group, from the American Heart Association, did note that diet drinks are often used by people who generally consume large amounts of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) as a way to wean themselves off.   

'This approach may be particularly helpful for individuals who are habituated to a sweet-tasting beverage and for whom water, at least initially, is not a desirable option,' the report said. 

The writers also pointed to a number of self-reporting surveys that showed an encouraging trend of Americans consuming fewer sugar-laden and diet drinks.

ccording to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, adults drank an average of 5.6 ounces of low-calorie drinks per day - the equivalent of about half a can of soda - in 2006.

The data showed that by 2014, adults were drinking just 3.8 ounces per day. For kids and teenagers, they were drinking less than an ounce per day.

KIDS ARE FALLING OUT OF LOVE WITH SODA, REVEALS CDC

American teenagers are increasingly shunning fizzy drinks, a CDC report revealed in February 2017.

Soda drinking among high school students in the US dropped by over one-third from 2007 to 2015.

Meanwhile there has been a uptick in the number of American children drinking diet soda.

Researchers say the new figures are encouraging as sugar-sweetened beverages are one of the largest contributors of added sugars to adolescents' diets.

However, they noted that the overall prevalence of Americans drinking sugary drinks, at any age, remains high and more approaches need to be put into place for the downward trend to continue. 

The report, as part of the CDC's weekly Morbidity and Mortality report, took its data from the YRBS - a US survey that provides representative data on health behaviors among students in grades nine to 12.

The survey asked the high schoolers how many times that had drunk 'a can, bottle, or glass of soda or pop, such as Coke, Pepsi, or Sprite' and not counting diet drinks.

Researchers found that the number of students drinking soda daily had significantly fallen from 33.8 percent in 2007 to 20.4 percent in 2015. 

Meanwhile, according to the survey, adults drank an average of 16.2 ounces of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) per day in 2000, which fell to 8.4 ounces in 2014.

The decline was even more drastic among kids, from 19 ounces per day in 2000 to 8.6 ounces in 2014.

The American Heart Association, in 2016, released its recommendation that children consume no more than six teaspoons of sugar per day.     

'We want to make crystal clear it's important to maintain that [downward] trend,' said Dr Alice Lichtenstein, vice chair of the writing group and a professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts University in Boston.

'We hear a lot about potential adverse effects of low-calorie sweeteners, but much of it is speculation. We have to go with the available evidence. The best advice we can give at this time is to ramp down intake and avoid excess consumption.'

The advisory particularly recommended that children stay away due to the lack of data on the long-term effects of these low-calorie drinks.

'One question we discussed is whether for children who are obese and who drink regular soda on a regular basis, is it OK for them to drink diet soda instead?' said Dr Frank Hu, a member of the writing group and chair of the nutrition department at Harvard University.

'The consensus is that for short-term weight control, it's OK. Certainly, it's not the best alternative...because we all know there are more healthy alternatives, such as water, low-fat and fat-free milk.'  

However, a report from the CDC released in February 2017 found that teens' daily intake of milk also declined (from about 44 percent to 37 percent), as did 100 percent fruit juice intake (27 percent to 21.6 percent). 

Although the FDA has labeled low and no-calorie sweeteners - sold under names such as Splenda and Sweet & Low - as 'generally recognized as safe', many of the experts say that this shouldn't be taken as a ringing endorsement.

'Artificial soda, there's nothing good about it,' said Christopher Gardner, director of Nutrition Studies at Stanford University, who was not part of the AHA advisory.

'There's nothing health-promoting about it. The only health-related role it has is as a transition beverage, replacing or displacing sugar-sweetened beverages.' 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6011365/Experts-warn-sugar-free-sodas-linked-weight-gain-dementia-stroke.html

Coke and Pepsi Give Millions to Public Health, Then Lobby Against It

The beverage giants Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have given millions of dollars to nearly 100 prominent health groups in recent years, while simultaneously spending millions to defeat public health legislation ...

By ANAHAD O’CONNOR
OCT. 10, 2016

A customer reaches for a soft drink at a market in California. 

Credit J. Michael Short for The New York Times        

The beverage giants Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have given millions of dollars to nearly 100 prominent health groups in recent years, while simultaneously spending millions to defeat public health legislation that would reduce Americans’ soda intake, according to public health researchers.

The findings, published on Monday in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, document the beverage industry’s deep financial ties to the health community over the past five years, as part of a strategy to silence health critics and gain unlikely allies against soda regulations.

The study’s authors, Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston University school of public health, and Daniel Aaron, a student at Boston University’s medical school, scoured public records including news releases, newspaper databases, lobbying reports, the medical literature and information released by the beverage giants themselves. While some of the incidents cited in the study already have been reported by news organizations, the medical journal report is the first to take a comprehensive look at the industry’s strategy of donating to health organizations while at the same time lobbying against public health measures. The study tracked industry donations and lobbying spending from 2011 through 2015, at a time when many cities were mulling soda taxes or other regulations to combat obesity.

“We wanted to look at what these companies really stand for,” said Mr. Aaron, the study’s co-author. “And it looks like they are not helping public health at all — in fact they’re opposing it almost across the board, which calls these sponsorships into question.”

Mr. Aaron said that the industry donations created “clear-cut conflicts of interest” for the health groups that accepted them.

The report found a number of instances in which influential health groups accepted beverage industry donations and then backed away from supporting soda taxes or remained noticeably silent about the initiatives.

In one instance cited in the study, the nonprofit group Save the Children, which had actively supported soda tax campaigns in several states, did an about face and withdrew its support in 2010. The group had accepted a $5 million grant from Pepsi and was seeking a major grant from Coke to help pay for its health and education programs for children.

Responding to the new research, Save the Children said, in a statement, that the group in 2010 had decided to focus on early childhood education, and that its decision to stop supporting soda taxes “was unrelated to any corporate support that Save the Children received.”

When New York proposed a ban on extra-large sodas in 2012, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics cited “conflicting research” and didn’t support the effort. The academy accepted $525,000 in donations from Coke in 2012. The following year it took a $350,000 donation from the company.

The academy said it no longer has a sponsorship relationship with the beverage firms.

The N.A.A.C.P. and the Hispanic Federation have publicly opposed anti-soda initiatives despite disproportionately high rates of obesity in black and Hispanic communities. Coke made more than $1 million in donations to the N.A.A.C.P. between 2010 and 2015, and more than $600,000 to the Hispanic Federation between 2012 and 2015. The groups did not respond to requests for comment.

“The beverage industry is using corporate philanthropy to undermine public health measures,” said Kelly D. Brownell, dean of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke, who was not involved in the new research.

The American Diabetes Association accepted $140,000 from the company between 2012 and 2014. The American Heart Association received more than $400,000 from Coke between 2010 and 2015. And the National Institutes of Health received nearly $2 million from Coke between 2010 and 2014.

In a statement, the heart association said the group is “leading efforts to reduce consumption of sugary drinks,” and the group has advocated for increased taxes on sugary drinks.

“To achieve our goals, we must engage a wide variety of food and beverage companies to be part of the solution,” the statement said. The soda sponsorship does not have “ any influence on our science and the public policy positions we advocate for.”

Coke referred questions about the study to their trade group, the American Beverage Association.

“We believe our actions in communities and the marketplace are contributing to addressing the complex challenge of obesity,” the beverage association said. “We stand strongly for our need, and right, to partner with organizations that strengthen our communities.”

The beverage association said it disagreed with public health advocates “on discriminatory and regressive taxes and policies on our products.”

In a statement PepsiCo said it is “incorrectly painted as a ‘soda company,’ when only a quarter of our global revenue comes from carbonated soft drinks.”

“We believe that obesity is a complex, multifaceted issue and that our company has an important role to play in addressing it - which includes engaging with public health organizations and responding to consumers’ demand for healthier products,” the statement said.

The New York Times last year reported that Coke had paid for scientific research that downplayed the link between sugary drinks and obesity. After that article was published, the beverage giant released a database showing that since 2010 it had spent more than $120 million on academic research and partnerships with health organizations involved in curbing obesity.

From 2011 to 2015, Coke spent on average more than $6 million per year lobbying against public health measures aimed at curbing soda consumption, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Pepsi spent about $3 million per year during that period, and the American Beverage Association spent more than $1 million each year, the study found.

In 2009 alone, when the government proposed a federal soda tax to curb obesity that would help finance health care reform, Coke, Pepsi and the American Beverage Association spent a combined $38 million lobbying against the measure, which ultimately failed.

When the mayor of Philadelphia proposed a soda tax in 2010, the beverage industry offered $10 million to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia if the tax proposal was dropped. The City Council voted down the measure, and the beverage association later made the donation.

Philadelphia did ultimately impose a soda tax this year. The beverage industry filed a lawsuit in September, calling the tax illegal. The industry also is spending millions on advertising campaigns against soda taxes that are on the ballot in at least four cities this November – three in Northern California, and one in Boulder, Colo.

Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, said the paper shows that soda companies “want to have it both ways — appear as socially responsible corporate citizens and lobby against public health measures every chance they get.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/well/eat/coke-and-pepsi-give-millions-to-public-health-then-lobby-against-it.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

If you are taking Pepsi. Coke and Soda drinks: MUST READ

Coke's Cookie Is Crumbling

Sugary beverages, soda chief among them, have been blamed for rising rates of obesity and related chronic diseases in developed countries, and there's evidence to support such claims.

August 23, 2016 

Story at-a-glance

• Gregory Hand, Ph.D., the former dean of the West Virginia School of Public Health, was forced out as dean because of his involvements with Coca-Cola
• Coca-Cola reportedly gave Hand more than half a million dollars to start a nonprofit group tasked with spreading the word that lack of exercise, and not sugary beverages, is responsible for obesity.
• The beverage giant also gave Hand $806,500 to conduct an “energy flux” study in 2011
• Michael Pratt, senior adviser for Global Health in the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the CDC, has also promoted and led research for Coca-Cola

By Dr. Mercola

Sugary beverages, soda chief among them, have been blamed for rising rates of obesity and related chronic diseases in developed countries, and there's evidence to support such claims.

Leading beverage companies like Coca-Cola, however, want the public to believe they're not part of the problem but rather are innocent scapegoats.

To get this message across and save their quickly deflating public image, Coca-Cola gave money — a lot of money — to Gregory Hand, Ph.D., the former dean of the West Virginia School of Public Health, to start a nonprofit group called the Global Energy Balance Network.

In early August 2016, the school announced Hand had been demoted and was forced out as dean because of his seemingly unscrupulous involvements with Coca-Cola, although he will still be working at the school in another role.

The purpose of the now-defunct Global Energy Balance Network, for instance, was to promote the message that lack of exercise, and not sugary beverages, is responsible for obesity.

Coca-Cola reportedly gave Hand more than half a million dollars to start the misleading nonprofit. About a year ago, health experts called the nonprofit's message "misleading" and "an effort by Coke to deflect criticism about the role sugary drinks have played in the spread of obesity and Type 2 diabetes."1

West Virginia School of Public Health Dean Forced to Step Down Due to Coca-Cola Conflicts

The formation of the Global Energy Balance Network was only one of Hand's underhanded dealings with Coca-Cola. The beverage giant also gave Hand $806,500 to conduct an "energy flux" study in 2011.

When leaders in public health are partnering with soda makers to downplay the risks such beverages pose in obesity, heart disease, diabetes and more, clearly they have not only failed in their duty to protect public health but also have taken steps to worsen it.

Gary Ruskin of the public interest group U.S. Right to Know told Corporate Crime Reporter:2

"Gregory Hand betrayed West Virginia taxpayers and his public health profession by helping Coca-Cola to evade responsibility for its role in the obesity epidemic …

Hand's role as dean was to improve public health, but he did the opposite … It's a good start that Hand was removed from his post at dean, but he should be fired from West Virginia University."

Coca-Cola Front Group Shut Down After Bad Press

The Global Energy Balance Network was basically a front group aimed at confusing you about soda science and diverting attention away from evidence showing soda is a major contributor to obesity and diabetes.

One of the group's primary messages was to tout exercise as the science-backed solution to obesity — while downplaying the importance of dietary issues, like soda consumption.

Coca-Cola did not come right out and disclose that they were behind the supposedly scientific front group — they were outed by The New York Times in August 2015.3

After The New York Times report, the front group received so much bad press and criticism that one of their academic ties, the University of Colorado School of Medicine, said it would return the $1 million grant Coca-Cola had given them to help start the group.

Public health authorities accused the group of using tobacco-industry tactics to raise doubts about the health hazards of soda, and a letter signed by more than three-dozen scientists said the group was spreading "scientific nonsense."4

By December 2015, the Global Energy Balance Network announced it would be shutting down, with Coca-Cola claiming it was working on increased transparency.5

Even CDC Officials Have Close Ties With Coca-Cola

Another leader in public health, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), should be cracking down on corporations promoting products linked to poor health and disease. Instead, they appear to have taken the company under their protective wing.

Earlier this year, for instance, Barbara Bowman, Ph.D., former director of the CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP), left the agency unexpectedly, two days after her close ties with Coca-Cola were revealed.

Bowman reportedly aided a Coca-Cola representative in efforts to influence World Health Organization (WHO) officials to relax recommendations on sugar limits.6Bowman, however, was not the only CDC official looking out for Coca-Cola.

Uncovered emails now suggest that Michael Pratt, senior adviser for Global Health in the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the CDC, has also promoted and led research for the soda giant. According to The Huffington Post:7

"Pratt did not respond to questions about his work, which includes a position as a professor at Emory University, a private research university in Atlanta that has received millions of dollars from the Coca-Cola Foundation and more than $100 million from famed longtime Coca-Cola leader Robert W. Woodruff and Woodruff's brother George.

Indeed, Coca-Cola's financial support for Emory is so strong that the university states on its website that 'it's unofficially considered poor school spirit to drink other soda brands on campus.'"

Coca-Cola CEO Assures Media That People Are Still Spending Money on Soda

Research suggests sugary beverages are to blame for about 183,000 deathsworldwide each year, including 133,000 diabetes deaths, 44,000 heart disease deaths and 6,000 cancer deaths. The health risks must be catching on, as soda consumption has been on a steady decline for decades.

Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of Americans say they actively try to avoid soda in their diet,8 and Americans now consume about the same amount they did back in 1986. Meanwhile, Coca-Cola sales fell 5 percent to $11.54 billion, from $12.16 billion in the year-ago quarter, according to Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent.9

Despite this, Kent told the media that "consumers are still buying and spending money on sparkling beverages," just in smaller amounts. The company has adopted a new strategy of selling smaller sizes of soft drinks at a higher margin in efforts to boost revenue.

Soda May Increase the Risk of Gallbladder and Bile Duct Cancer

Coca-Cola has spent nearly $120 million on grants given to health organizations, including cancer organizations,10 in recent years, which is ironic since soda has been linked to an increased risk of cancer.

Recently, a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute revealed high consumption of sweetened beverages may increase the risk of rare cancers in the gallbladder and bile ducts around the liver.11

The finding is particularly noteworthy because research suggests obesity and elevated blood sugar levels (often found in diabetes) may increase the risk of these rare cancers — and both obesity and diabetes have, in turn, been linked to sugary drinks.

Diet Soda May Disrupt Your Gut Microbiota

As we've seen many times over, the solution to avoiding the health risks of sugary beverages is NOT to switch to artificially sweetened diet soda, as these beverages have just as much risk as their sugar-sweetened cousins — if not more so.

Studies have found that artificial sweeteners, including aspartame, may lead to weight gain12 and glucose intolerance by altering gut microbiota.13

Unbeknownst to many, aspartame has been found to increase hunger ratings compared to glucose or water and is associated with heightened motivation to eat (even more so than other artificial sweeteners like saccharin or acesulfame potassium).14

For a substance often used in "diet" products, the fact that aspartame may actually increase weight gain is incredibly misleading. A study published in the journal Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism also found that consuming aspartame may be associated with greater glucose intolerance, particularly for people who are obese. According to the study:15

"This study provides evidence that consumption of aspartame may be associated with greater diabetes risk in individuals with higher adiposity. Aspartame is reported to be associated with changes in gut microbiota that are associated with impairments in insulin resistance in lean and obese rodents. We observe that aspartame was related to significantly greater impairments in glucose tolerance for individuals with obesity … "

Diet Soda May Make You Consume More Calories

It's a myth that drinking diet soda can help you lose weight. On the contrary, a recent study on fruit flies again found that artificial sweeteners may make you eat more than you normally would.16 For the study, fruit flies were fed a diet of food sweetened with sucralose (Spenda) or sugar for five days.

Those fed sucralose ate about 30 percent more calories than those fed sugar. The researchers then revealed that sucralose activated a fasting response in the flies, which triggered them to eat more to compensate for the perceived lack of food.17

A similar study conducted in mice yielded similar results, with the mice fed sucralose consuming more food. What's more, when the flies were fed real sugar later on, the brains of those that had been used to consuming artificial sweeteners responded differently. They showed more activity in response to the sugar, which suggests it tasted sweeter after getting used to artificial sweeteners. Study author Herbert Herzog told Forbes:18

"These findings further reinforce the idea that 'sugar-free' varieties of processed food and drink may not be as inert as we anticipated … Artificial sweeteners can actually change how animals perceive the sweetness of their food, with a discrepancy between sweetness and energy levels prompting an increase in caloric consumption."

Not to mention, 92 percent of independently funded studies found aspartame, which is often used in diet soda, may cause adverse effects beyond increased calorie consumption, including depression and headaches.19 Writing in Vice, one woman also shared her story of how suffering from chronic migraines virtually ruined her 20s — until a migraine specialist finally made the connection to diet soda.

She was drinking close to three bottles of aspartame-sweetened diet soda a day and suffering from multiple migraines a week. When she gave up the diet soda, the migraines went away.20

The "Coke Is a Joke" infographic exposes the false weight loss and wellness claims of Coke in its diet soda line, which uses aspartame and other artificial sweeteners. 

Don't Fall for Coca-Cola's Marketing — Give up Soda to Protect Your Health

Despite Coca-Cola's slick marketing campaigns, government ties and heavy contributions to academia to give the illusion that drinking soda is perfectly healthy, the fact remains that this is one dietary habit worth kicking to the curb. Your best, most cost-effective choice of beverage is filtered tap water. I strongly recommend using a high-quality water filtration system unless you can verify the purity of your water. Seltzer or mineral water is another option.

Adding a squeeze of lemon or lime is one way to add some flavor and variety, and many soda drinkers find it easier to ditch soda when replacing it with some sparkling water. Unsweetened tea and coffee can also be healthy beverage choices. As for a safer sweetener option, you could use stevia or Luo Han, both of which are safe natural sweeteners.

However, if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would likely benefit from avoiding all sweeteners, including stevia and Luo Han. In order to break free of your soda habit, be sure you also address the emotional component of your cravings using tools such as the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT).

Turbo Tapping, in particular, is an extremely effective and simple tool to get rid of your soda addiction in a short amount of time. In addition, soda cravings may be a sign that you need to make some changes to your diet to better fulfill your nutritional requirements. My free nutrition plan can help you do this in a step-by-step manner.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/08/23/coca-cola-close-ties.aspx

Do You Drink Diet Soda?

Is Drinking Diet Soda Really Bad For Your Health?

The answer may surprise you

This post is on Healthwise

by Barbara Minton
Posted on July 16, 2015

Is diet soda bad for you? Diet soda has no sugar, calories, fat, or carbohydrates, and it feels all cold and bubbly going down your throat. What’s not to like on the surface? Unfortunately, the advertising on the can doesn’t tell the whole story, and those bubbles come at a very high price. That price can include Type 2 diabetes, seizures, loss of kidney function, various cancers, and most ironically of all, obesity.

How can diet soda cause obesity if it has no sugar, calories, fat, or carbohydrates? The human body works in many complex ways. A study published this spring found that over a nine year period, people drinking diet soda gained three times the amount of abdominal fat as those who didn’t drink diet soda.

Those who didn’t drink diet soda increased less than an inch around the waist during the nine years, while regular drinkers of diet soda added more than three inches around their middle.

Those who were only occasional diet soda drinkers increased about 1.8 inches in the midsection. This is a bad sign because the accumulation of belly fat has been highly associated with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and inflammation. (Granted, correlation does not imply causation.)

So why does this happen? To put it simply: artificial sweeteners. Zero-calorie sweeteners make drinks up to 600 times more sweet than regular sugar, setting the bar for satiation at a much higher level. Another consideration is that fake sugars can change the friendly bacteria living in the gut in ways that would increase susceptibility to the insulin resistance and glucose intolerance that precedes a diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes.

Women drinking two or more diet sodas a day experienced a 30% decline in their kidney function over the course of only a decade, says another study. Those researchers found that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose were to blame for the rapid degeneration of kidney filtration rates.

Various researchers such as Dr. John Olney from Washington University and Dr. Richard Wurtman from MIT have found that artificial sweeteners create holes or lesions in the brains of lab rats fed aspartame, deform their fetuses, and lower IQs. Nerve damage, seizures, and death were also reported by these researchers. But their research was kept from the public eye while corporate research teams pumped out trumped up documents proclaiming its safety.

Renown Dr. Morando Soffritti recently confirmed what other scientists had observed as much as 30 years ago, documenting that consuming aspartame leads to a host of illness and disease that includes malignant tumors, lymphoma, leukemia, and premature death.

One of the components of aspartame is wood alcohol, an extremely poisonous chemical used in paint remover. Since its FDA approval in 1981, aspartame has been the source of 78% of complaint reports to the FDA’s Adverse Reaction Monitoring System (ARMS).

Reactions reported include memory loss, slurred speech, vision problems, and dizziness. This cluster of symptoms has become so common that it is often referred to as aspartame disease. Of course adverse symptoms reported to ARMS are a very small portion of adverse symptoms in the population.

The Dangers of Fake Sugar are Not Confined to Aspartame

Many individuals hearing about the havoc aspartame can create in the body have switched to other artificial sweeteners advertised as being ‘safe,’but that is just propaganda. Sucralose, marked as Splenda, has a similar profile of damage as aspartame, including severe chronic illness, central nervous system disorders, migraines, reduced immunity, and various cancers.

Artificial sweetener Acesulfame K received FDA approval in 1988 and has been marketed it as ‘safe’ as well. Since then it has been found to stimulate low blood sugar attacks and lung and breast cancers, in addition to leukemia and chronic respiratory disease in rodents. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has noted there was initially a petition to stop the FDA approval of Acesulfame K because of “significant doubt” about its safety.

In May of 2014, the FDA gave its blessing to Advantame, a cousin of aspartame. Advantame is a blockbusting 20,000 times sweeter per gram than table sugar. You probably won’t know when you are consuming this one, because it has the feature of not breaking down in heat, making it perfect for use in commercially baked goods.

The bottom line is that artificial sweeteners are artificial creations which can compromise immunity and lead to bad outcomes. If you want to kick the artificial sweetener habit and get on the road to better health, using the correct Stevia for sweetening is the way to do it. Better yet, tone down the sweetness and really taste the components of what you are drinking by skipping sweetener altogether.

Other Popular Stories:

1. News Flash: Review Finds Diet Soda to be Health Destroyer
2. Study: Drinking Diet Soda Leads to Weight GAIN
3. Is Diet Soda Bad for You? 5 Major Negative Side Effects of Drinking DIET Soda
4. Diet Soda, Aspartame Shown to Destroy Kidney Function
5. Diet Soda Increases Risk of Heart Attack and Stroke
6. How Diet Sodas Mess With Your Brain (Video)

Source: http://naturalsociety.com/is-drinking-diet-soda-really-bad-for-your-health

This post is on Healthwise