Why do people act like coffee in the morning is such a sacred routine but soda in the morning [basically the same drink] is lowbrow and unhealthy?
like, it’s caffeine and water and brown, who cares. i drink diet soda so it’s no calories, no sugar. versus the stereotype starbucks order, why is soda so demonized
the whole sort of basically woo stuff about oh there’s antioxidants there which give you a 3% lower risk of skin cancer after the age of 65 like come on that doesn’t count
Idk either, i usually start my days with a coffee, but have started some with a can of red bull as well. I think drinking anything other than water is pretty much never “the best thing” for you, so whether it’s coffee or soda, if you can work it into a otherwise healthy diet: you drink your soda I’m the morning, or coffee, or tea or whatsoever. We’re all adults here and shouldn’t be judging each other over such petty things anyway
Contrary to popular belief, diet soda is completely fine in moderation (like 20 cans per day limit), assuming your teeth/guts can handle the acidity. Source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCDqqVwYMa4
Coffee typically doesn’t have much or any sugar in it. It’s caffeine, water, milk. It has more caffeine than soda so it feels better to take it in the morning
I get that it’s a youtube video but Dr Mike knows his stuff. He goes through WHO’s recommendations and gives his practical input on the matter.
His background -
Cofounder of Renaissance Periodization, Dr. Mike Israetel holds a PhD in Sport Physiology from East Tennessee State University.
Currently a professor in the strength and hypertrophy masters program at Lehman College, Mike has taught several courses at multiple universities, including Nutrition for Public Health, Advanced Sports Nutrition and Exercise, and Nutrition and Behavior.
Originally from Moscow, Russia, he has worked as a consultant on sports nutrition to the U.S. Olympic Training Site in Johnson City, TN, and has been an invited speaker at numerous scientific and performance/health conferences worldwide, including nutritional seminars at the U.S. Olympic Training Center in Lake Placid, NY. Mike has coached numerous athletes and busy professionals in both diet and weight training, and is himself a competitive bodybuilder and professional Brazilian Jiu Jitsu grappler.
Everything anout energy drinks’ branding screams unhealthy. Even their advertising is focused on partying and extreme sports, it’s like they want you to increase your chances of dying young.
That being said, the actual evidence of energy drinks being particularly unhealthy is kind of mixed.
The main risk of sugar isn’t the calories themselves, but rather their effect on our fullness perception. That is, the more sugar we eat, the harder it is to feel full after eating something. This in return cases a vicious cycle, one that can easily lead into obesity. I don’t know if that same issue can happen with sweeteners but I don’t generally trust anything that tricks our senses to such a degree. I don’t consider coffee the holy grail either, it’s just that its negative health effects have been tested for ages and are acceptable for its overall benefits. But that’s my own risk assessment, with only my health in the line.
It’s hard to get a good grip on the health neutrality of diet soda when the companies who make them have lied to us about sugar for decades. Maybe sweeteners are just their next lie, who knows. Much of the research done on sweeteners is funded by the ones who profit from it. The food industry have far more power than anyone should be comfortable with them having.
So… you should like… avoid obvious signs of it? We have little wiggle room? wdym by this dog there’s defiantly an area between cancer riddled and 100% healthy
That WHO study is highly problematic. It has some fairly serious methodological flaws. It’s been disputed by the FDA. It is biased due to the panel comprising:
eight WHO panelists involved with assessing safe levels of aspartame consumption who are beverage industry consultants who currently or previously worked with the alleged Coke front group, International Life Sciences Institute (Ilsi).
We don’t. It’s been studied for decades and all they could come up with was that “in massive quantities it’s possible it might cause cancer”. Which is shit. Everything in massive quantities breaks something.
Carbonated drinks are not good for your teeth. Even if they are of the zero sugar variant. The CO2 basically increases the acidity in the drink. They add a shit ton of sweetener or sugar to hide the sour taste. Drinking sodas right after brushing your teeth just negates the positive effects toothpaste will have on your teeth. Even worse if you brush your teeth after drinking a soda. The acidity of a soda makes your teeth softer then when you brush you basically scrape the enamel away.
And yes this is also true for fruit juice like orange juice.
Water and co2 combine to make a weak acid. But that isn’t the acid that is the issue. The real issue is that soda makers like coke intentionally make the soda more acidic, to cover up the overly sweet. Without the added acid the soda would taste way too sweet.
The real issue tho is all the sugar they put in it. All the added calories and triglycerides is what kills you over time.
Because people aren’t pouring 30-40 grams of sugar into their coffee. Also artificial sweeteners taste like shit and haven’t been proven to not cause other health issues.
Oh god dude you’d kill us so quick in the pharmaceutical industry.
EVERYTHING is trying to kill us, were lucky when something doesn’t - so assuming a chemical we randomly made that tastes like sugar doesn’t emulate it 100% isn’t unreasonable
(and what do you know, there even are links between aspartame in diet coke and cancer)
The statement you think is supporting your belief is actually saying the opposite. WHO specifically does not claim that aspartame cause cancer.
However, what they did state is there was no reason to change the recommended acceptable daily intake level of 40 mg per kg of body weight per day .
Also, The FDA disagrees with IARC’s (what you refer to as WHO) conclusion that these studies support classifying aspartame as a possible carcinogen to humans. FDA scientists reviewed the scientific information included in IARC’s review in 2021 when it was first made available and identified significant shortcomings in the studies on which IARC relied. FDA also pointed out that JECF (also WHO) did not raise safety concerns for aspartame under the current levels of use and did not change the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI).
So yeah… Just believing journalists trying to click bait you is probably more likely to give you cancer than following the recommendation from WHO regarding daily intake of aspartame.
I just love how you end with “I have zero reason to listen to you” when no one has claimed such a thing and you were the one choosing to do the listening.
All of this because of me pointing out that WHO still claims that there is a daily amount of aspartame that is safe to consume and that the only thing you can prove is that something is unsafe and not the other way around.
By the way… If you think we should avoid aspartame because there is a suspicion that it might cause cancer I can imagine what you think about sugar, animal fat and protein which there is actual proof that it can cause everything from heart disease to cancer.
I didn’t mention any regulatory bodies specifically, cause health should be generally referenced from as many sources as possible - but all those numbers are based on theoretical doses on rats, your coefficient of safety is gonna be that close to the theoretical??
Especially when there’s probably billions in companies like coke and Pepsi on the line, yet were still trending in the direction of stricter classification - you’re gonna risk your entire health on there being no bias???
You use a (heavily questioned) statement of an organization as a base for your claims when the organization explicitly doesn’t support your conclusion. It’s a fact that WHO still claims there is no dangers consuming the recommended daily amount.
The method used on rats to estimate the dangers is the method used when estimating dangers every other substances. So the argument is valid as long as you claim that every other substance cause cancer.
Then you end up nibbling on edges of the classic “the great aspartame conspiracy” but what you totally miss that “big sugar” is even more powerfull…
“Coffee in the Morning” is a cultural phenomenon. You can argue the relative merits of different beverages and times to drink them, but the status of coffee has nothing to do with nutrition or biochemistry.
Sodas have high fructose corn syrup which is a type of sugar. One soda contains 18 packets of sugar [1]. This is far more than coffee for the average person. Now if you consider diet sodas those use aspertame as a sweetener and so it’s basically sweet’n’low packets. So on a pure sugar content perspective coffee is healthier.
Soda has been known to eat away teeth [2]. While coffee does so as well, it’s to a lesser degree[3]. So long-term physically, coffee is better.
If you consider nutritional benefits and ignore the antioxidants like you said, coffee is still mostly water and therefore can count to your water intake [4]. Soda is also water as you might imagine, it being a drink, but again, to a lesser degree.
That said, if you drink diet soda in the morning you do you. You shouldn’t feel judged for wanting to eat something in moderation. But know that coffee has proven health benefits and soda has proven health detriments. These things apply to sodas at whatever time of day.
A cup of coffee also has about 2g of fibre, which is actually quite a lot in the context of the average American diet of highly processed food. IIRC the average American only eats about 15g of fibre per day - which is fucking terrible BTW.
Add comment