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
Coffee is healthier than soda if you take your coffee black. Black coffee is basically just water. Soda will have either sugar or artificial sweeteners in additional to sodium and other additives that make it a less healthy option.
Coffee with milk would still be better for you than soda, but you’ve got a good point about coffee with sweeteners essentially being just as bad as soda. Maybe the reason people treat coffee differently is because there is a healthy way to drink it and they incorrectly extrapolate that fact to any type of coffee (no, your coffee with eight sugars is not healthier than a can of Coke). Add in the fact that coffee is an acquired taste and now you’ve got one drink that only adults tend to drink (coffee) and one drink that kids love (soda) and people incorrectly assume that coffee is a more “grown up” thing to drink.
Yes and diet soda isn’t a perfect alternative. We’re still learning about the long term effects of artificial sweeteners. It’s a headache trying to navigate the options.
There are seltzer waters that have caffeine. I would guess those are comparable to black coffee in terms of healthiness.
I’m not saying you’re totally wrong to be suspicious but aspartame is the most scientifically examined substance in the history of the world, and so far its only damaging if you consume it undiluted in large quantities, which is also true for like vinegar or alcohol etc.
it would be equally true to suggest we don’t know the long term effects of exposure to mobile phones, even though they seem perfectly safe.
Sure been studied but anything with this much profits on the line is bound to be massively influenced by it, and the fact that its gotten to even possibly a carcinogen is enough of a sign to me.
Andsalso ‘most studied’ what? Wheres that number even from
Absolutely true. Aspartame is generally regarded as safe under 40mg/kg and still researching long term effects doesn’t mean it’s dangerous, just that there may be more to discover. To be fair, science is constantly evolving and new discoveries are being made every day for… well, everything. Still, if you want to find the “healthiest” way to get your daily caffeine, there are options out there with minimal additives. Black coffee, tea, seltzers, even pills.
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…
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.
In this context may also be relevant discussions among coffee enthusiasts who talk about this and that chemical process during the brewing process, lending it a bitter or rich taste – the coffee is full of chemicals.
I’m allergic to the word “chemicals” in discussions such as this, because it is too vague to define anything specific. It generally is used as a degradation of a thing that the speaker doesn’t like. But that’s all there is to it. The speaker can just as well say “I’m suspicious of this thing that you hold there”, and this communicates exactly the same thing, maybe with a bit more care about ones words.
The distinction between natural and artificial is just as arbitrary. All the “plant derived” non-sugar sweeteners taste super weird to me and some give me a headache
they’re really proving my point. just this pure implicit bias for the stodgy adult drink that is functionally the same as soda - it’s liquid with caffeine
You probably should’ve asked this in !NoStupidQuestions…
The two beverages are not the same. Coffee can be served with or without milk/cream and sugar, but even with sugar, it has far less than is in soda. It also has a significantly higher quantity of caffeine.
People aren’t downvoting you because you drink soda; it’s because you asked a dumb question with a ridiculous and blatantly incorrect take. Just drink soda and don’t worry about what other people think. There’s not some mass of people judging you. No one cares if you drink soda in the morning…
But it’s just preposterous to be claiming they’re the same beverage or that soda is as effective as coffee at waking people up. How about milk and soda? Are they the same beverage? What about root beer and beer? Your argument is just blatantly false and silly. That’s why you’re being downvoted.
i was under the impression that ‘casual conversation’ meant ‘not necessarily being chastized for asking a lighthearted question without literally citing sources like i’m writing a thesis’
You made an absolutely absurd claim. It didn’t seem like it to you, whixh is obvious now, but that was not a lighthearted comment more like it was a slap in the face.
At least, all the people responding seem to have taken it as a challenge
People downvoting your question proves your point? That’s all it takes? Then what the fuck have we been wasting our time for?
Someone, call science quick! We can save them so much time and energy if they don’t need to do all that rigorous testing anymore, they can just ask the internet and see if it gets upvoted and downvoted!
Call the judges and cops and lawyers! They don’t need evidence or proof anymore, we can all just vote and that will prove if someone committed triple homicide clear as day on camera or not!
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.
591.471 mL of Coke contains like 187.5 g of sugar. Sweet coffee is healthier.
[I am not a bot, and this action was not performed automatically.]
Actually I looked it up, a 20 US fluid ounce Cola has 14-18 [teaspoons] of sugar, 65 grams in normal units (for Coca Cola). So you completely botched it.
I am usually cold in the morning, and thus prefer a hot drink.
Soda is carbonated, and too much carbonation can cause esophageal issues (I have actually had this from too many carbonated drinks, it’s not just a fabricated boogeyman).
Coffee with a modest amount of creamer (I do half a shot of coffeemate vanilla bean) is definitely healthier than soda, whether regular, diet, zero etc.
All that said, I will have a soda instead if we run out of either coffee or creamer. Vanilla Coke zero sugar is my go-to in that instance.
Black coffee and tea are considered the healthiest options because no sugar, no sugar substitutes, no preservatives or other additives, and they’ve been used long enough that the health implications are well researched.
Diet sodas have ingredients that are considered safe in moderation by the FDA, but we are still learning about the long term effects of artificial sugars and different additives. There are caffeinated seltzers out there with just natural flavoring and caffeine. That would probably be a better comparison to black coffee and tea.
Add comment