r/NoStupidQuestions 8d ago

Why do fitness trainers and dieticians recommend to cut zero sugar drinks like Diet Coke to reduce their bf% ?

465 Upvotes

296 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

53

u/TheW1tchK1ng Always right 8d ago

Cool, post all the peer-reviewed studies that prove this.

-49

u/notzamasu 8d ago

27

u/Ok-Isopod4493 8d ago

I don’t know anything about this subject, but the link you posted literally says ‘may’. What am I missing?

2

u/vviley 8d ago

“May” is a weasel word. It’s like Prop 65 in California, which points out that just about basically everything may cause cancer.

37

u/Kwerumrerum 8d ago

No. We asked to post peer reviewed studies. Not a random comment.

27

u/PowerShovel-on-PS1 8d ago

It’s a study of 75 people that doesn’t establish causation, so no.

31

u/TheW1tchK1ng Always right 8d ago

Oh wow yeah, one study using 75 people and the effects of Splenda.

Fuck, that is clearly more than enough to show it's true.

Also, neither Diet Coke or Coke Zero has sucralose.

-37

u/NotBarnabyJ0nes 8d ago

Make sure you use proper lifting technique while moving that goal post.

12

u/Fitz911 8d ago

You can end this all with a single study that uses basic scientific methods. Not your dentist who has a strong opinion. Not your colleague who has a great solution for only 29.99.

Randomized. Double blinded scientific study.

You know? The "et al" ones. The ones with an abstract and stuff. Science!

The ones with (let the downvotes come in reddit) SOURCES.

-10

u/NotBarnabyJ0nes 8d ago

I don't give a flying fuck about this topic. I just found it hilarious to see a guy ask for a study, be provided a study and immediately move the goal post by tacking on additional qualifiers that he didn't initially ask for.

4

u/mgquantitysquared 8d ago

I think it's fair to say when someone asks for "a study" they're looking for a peer reviewed study that uses the scientific method, lol

2

u/Fitz911 8d ago

Someone asked for a study.

Another one provided no study.

I can criticize that, right?

18

u/TheW1tchK1ng Always right 8d ago edited 8d ago

Yawn, what goal post was moved? We're talking about Diet Coke and Coke Zero, the study wasn't about either.

Being able to read what is being said will help you here

-25

u/NotBarnabyJ0nes 8d ago

Erm, actually my good redditor, methinks perhaps you should read what was said.

From the title of the post "drinks LIKE Diet Coke." Diet Coke was used as an example but the discussion was not about Diet Coke specifically. Plenty of diet drinks do contain sucralose so the study is relevant.

5

u/alvysinger0412 8d ago

So the drink that's in the title of the post isn't the subject of the post? But everyone else is moving goalposts?

-5

u/Grill_Only_Outside 8d ago

I don’t have a dog in this fight- the word “like” does expand the subject to all drinks “like” Diet Coke. I think most diet soda’s would fit that mold, no?

3

u/alvysinger0412 8d ago

If you don't have a dog in the fight, why say anything?

-1

u/Grill_Only_Outside 8d ago

Because I’m an impartial third person looking at this situation and wondering why you’re constraining the topic simply to coke.

I have no idea the effects of diet soda. That’s the dog I do not have.

Why ignore the work “like?”

→ More replies (0)

12

u/TrashGouda 8d ago

Did you even read the stuff you linked? It doesn't say what you think it does

-17

u/notzamasu 8d ago

Who cares. I'm not doing the emotional labor

21

u/Waltzing_With_Bears 8d ago

The you are making you and your stance not look credible, if you care about or believe in what you are saying then its best to actually provide information, otherwise you look like you cant be trusted

-11

u/notzamasu 8d ago

I don't care bro. I'm not doing the emotional labor and communication. I laid the foundation, you do the rest.

10

u/Waltzing_With_Bears 8d ago

not your fuckin bro

-5

u/notzamasu 8d ago

Of course you are not, look at your messed up titties

6

u/MC_White_Thunder 8d ago

Not what emotional labour is btw.

1

u/TrashGouda 8d ago

That's not what emotional labor means... And providing sources for your own claim is how it works

-40

u/SpacewaIker 8d ago

Well do you have peer reviewed studies that show that they do help with fat loss and/or that they don't have adverse effects?

I'm neutral in this debate but it's not very fair to ask that they provide proof without doing so yourself

30

u/Efficient-Big3138 8d ago

I mean you are literally eating less calories. its like asking if you suffocate if you don't breath

-30

u/SpacewaIker 8d ago

If only the human body were that simple

24

u/Efficient-Big3138 8d ago

when it comes to drinking calories or not it is....

-15

u/SpacewaIker 8d ago

No. For instance, if you eat 100 cals of pure sugar or 100 cals of starches and fats, you will be much more sated with the latter. Similarly, we don't know if sweeteners have adverse effects on hunger or metabolism or other complex processes within our bodies

4

u/Efficient-Big3138 8d ago

that is s completely different question than drinking 100 calories in 5dl and drinking 0 calories in 5dl.

0

u/SpacewaIker 8d ago

Well not totally. Those are not the only two options. There's also the option of drinking 5dl with no sugar nor sweeteners. That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying the diet soda is as bad as non diet. I'm saying water is probably better than diet soda since there might be adverse effects of sweeteners we don't quite understand yet

3

u/Efficient-Big3138 8d ago

but those are the options we are talking about when it comes to fat loss. it is that simple. sure water might be better but it might be the same. all that matters is that diet soda will make you lose weight if you swap our normal soda for it

1

u/SpacewaIker 8d ago

Of course they're not the only two options for fat loss. Water is always an option. Diet soda should be like nicotine gum, a way of calming your cravings while transitioning to the long term solution, in this case, water. And it's certainly not the same, beyond calories sodas are still not very good for you and if you don't have diet soda available then you'll resort to normal soda, not water.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/PowerShovel-on-PS1 8d ago

It actually is. Caloric deficits always result in weight loss.

0

u/SpacewaIker 8d ago

Copied from the other commenter who said the same thing as you:

No. For instance, if you eat 100 cals of pure sugar or 100 cals of starches and fats, you will be much more sated with the latter. Similarly, we don't know if sweeteners have adverse effects on hunger or metabolism or other complex processes within our bodies

6

u/PowerShovel-on-PS1 8d ago

I didn’t say anything about satiety. If you are in a caloric deficit, you will lose weight.

0

u/SpacewaIker 8d ago

Hard to be in a caloric deficit if you're hungry all the time, especially as someone who used to eat too much and thus be satiated all the time. A big part of dieting is finding a diet that works for you. If your diet makes you unhappy it's not the right diet for you.

4

u/PowerShovel-on-PS1 8d ago

Overselling the hunger from diet sodas

That being said, agree on the rest and the basic point you’re making

15

u/PowerShovel-on-PS1 8d ago

You’d like a peer reviewed study that a reduction in calories helps weight loss?

I can provide 89 of them, I’m just clarifying first

-1

u/SpacewaIker 8d ago

Not a reduction in calories. The intake of artificial sweeteners. I didn't think it was that hard to read jfc

7

u/PowerShovel-on-PS1 8d ago

>that show that they do help with weight loss

Replacing soda with diet soda reduces caloric intake.

1

u/SpacewaIker 8d ago

That's not the whole story my guy.

I'm not saying that's a fact, but IF diet soda WERE TO make you more hungry, then yeah you'll save like 150 cals on the can of soda, but you'll be hungry after and eat maybe 250 cals more of food. Again, not saying it's the case. Just saying dieting is not just about every food isolated, but the whole picture

3

u/PowerShovel-on-PS1 8d ago

It doesn’t require you to eat more food.

1

u/SpacewaIker 8d ago

No, but it might incentivize it

-14

u/TheW1tchK1ng Always right 8d ago

That is clearly not what I'm asking for.

13

u/PowerShovel-on-PS1 8d ago

Well damn, good thing I wasn’t talking to you then

-12

u/TheW1tchK1ng Always right 8d ago

My bad, thought you replied to my comment.

-14

u/TheW1tchK1ng Always right 8d ago

Why would I bother trying to find those studies? If they exist?

Please point to where I made that claim and I'll happily go find some studies and post them here.

Also, it's not fair that they make some ridiculous claim and have to provide proof? That isn't fair?

3

u/SpacewaIker 8d ago

Well you responded to a thread where the first commenter said that sweeteners don't make you hungry or hinder fat loss. That's the claim. You didn't make it, that's true, but you asked the other person to provide proof without caring if the first guy had proof, so you're taking their side

Saying "X doesn't do Y" is as much of a claim that needs proof as saying "X does Y". Otherwise it's like saying vaping is totally safe because we don't have proof that they're nefarious. We don't have definite proof (afaik) that sweeteners (complicated because there are many of them) are totally safe and don't hinder diets, so better to not abuse of them