Low-calorie sweeteners represent just about everything that’s wrong with our diet. They’re mostly synthetic. They play to the human preference for sweetness, which manufacturers leverage to sell us more, and then more again …. And they’re mostly in highly processed foods.
The nutrition community doesn’t like diet soda. Of all the groups that make dietary recommendations, I can’t find one that lends full-throated support …. But if there’s some evidence that [low-calorie sweeteners] can help at least a little with weight loss, and evidence for harm is practically nonexistent, why oppose them?
People don’t want to drink water. They want to drink soda. But the attitude in the nutrition community isn’t just that you shouldn’t drink soda — regular or diet — it’s that you shouldn’t even want to drink soda. It’s puritanical, holier-than-thou and breathtakingly condescending.
Take the most recent meta-analysis, published in the British Medical Journal. “There was no compelling evidence” for benefits, the article concludes, but “potential harms . . . could not be excluded.” Why not the other way around? If there’s no compelling evidence for harms, and benefits can’t be excluded, pass the diet root beer.
Read full, original article: The case for diet soda: It gets a bad rap, but the research tells a different story (behind pay wall)