The GLP is committed to full transparency. Download and review our just-released 2019 Annual Report.

There’s little evidence showing diet soda is harmful—so why do experts recommend we avoid it?

| | June 25, 2019

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.

Related article:  Understanding the Obesity Paradox: Why being overweight may be less concerning than being unfit

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)

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Click the link above to read the full, original article.
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend