I'm shocked that Bill Gates drinks 3-4 Diet Cokes a day. Probably harder for me to understand than seeing educated people smoke (since, at least with smoking, there's a chemical dependency at play)
48.61% of the portfolio is held in Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK.B) which allocates 14.62% of its holdings to Coca-Cola. [2]
"Bill Gates' Cascade Investment has disclosed a significant position in Coca-Cola FEMSA, S.A.B. de C.V. (ADR) (NYSE:KOF). According to a newly amended filing with the SEC, Cascade Investment holds a total of some 25.79 million series L shares of the company, equal to 5.3% of the outstanding stock. Mr. Gates, via Cascade and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust is deemed to own around 88.01 million shares, or 17.7% of the class. In an earlier filing, Mr. Gates' position in Coca-Cola FEMSA amassed 87.84 million shares, or 19.2% of the outstanding stock." [3]
[1] http://www.j3sg.com/Reports/Stock-Insider/Generate-Instituti...
[2] http://www.j3sg.com/Reports/Stock-Insider/Generate-Instituti...
[3] http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/bill-gates-cascade-investm...
After the study shows us that something is safe the dead people hop out of the grave.
Imagine their surprice!
Oh, I thought I died but then the new research came in.
However, Nature is not out to deceive you. Nature is not saying to itself, "I'm going to make diet soft drinks look better than they really are".
All scientific studies, whether giving positive or negative results, must count.
Why? The caffeine, or the fact that it's Coke and not coffee or tea (or ...)?
> at least with smoking, there's a chemical dependency at play
Diet Coke still contains caffeine (~50mg/can), which is generally considered to also cause physical dependence and withdrawal effects on abrupt cessation[1].
Granted, nicotine withdrawal is a lot worse, but serious caffeine fiends won't have a fun time of it for a few days, and it can be disruptive for several weeks.
You can decide for yourself whether it's poison, but it's definitely the reason many people regard diet sodas as such.
EDIT, I guess this should have gone on parent. At any rate, latch, I had the exact same reaction. And this is a man with resources. (Indeed, maybe he drinks some secret power soda and just used Diet Coke to give it a plebian air. Maybe such details are even handled by his blogging software.)
Well, it's not very scientific, but I've arrived at this theory by a couple of observations. One in myself - I used to be a huge diet coke junkie, up to 10 cans a day sometimes, and I found it impossible to lose weight, plus I noticed that I got that "after sugar" feeling somehow from the drink. When I cut it out, plus everything else artificially sweet (I was barely consuming any sugar), my weight loss issues disappeared and I just felt .. much better.
The other side of my anecdotal data comes from observing the same thing in friends. I know a few people who have gone pretty heavily low carb to lose weight, and I note a seeming correlation between success and cutting out sweet foods/drinks, no matter if they have sugar or not. OK, it's not exactly a double blind large-scale test, but nonetheless.
I'm not the only one I know who thinks this either. A couple of the PTs at my gym have noticed the same thing, and advise their clients to cut everything sweet from their diet, fake sugar or not. And Tim Ferriss advises a maximum of one diet drink a day.
So yeah, if you ask me (or the people above) - stay away from diet soft drinks and anything else sweet. I can't point to any large-scale studies, but over the years I've become pretty convinced there's something there.
Diet coke hates are in the same category as anti-vacs campaigners... They don't believe in science.
And your blanket dismissal is doubtful anyway. Here's a study clearly indicating correlation between aspartame and insulin response: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/7/e59.full Cephalic-phase insulin release is a known phenomenon and could obviously be triggered by expectation of a diet drink.
Being skeptical of mainstream nutritional "science" (barely worthy of the name, IMO, and which has led to an unprecedented obesity epidemic) is in no way comparable to "anti-vaxxers". And frankly, if I noticed a very strong correlation between people I knew who'd been vaccinated and then all suddenly became autistic, I'd be asking questions too, and would be right to do so, and that spirit of skeptical enquiry is the very essence of science.
There is a lot of mis-information around artificial sweeteners, I think it just triggers my "Frustrated with the internet" nerve or something.
I agree, be skeptical, question, don't take things at face value. But, I'd add: be informed, look up where we are at in current day research. Diabetic research is huge, it isn't generally something to be skeptical of, there are people who's lives are saved, preserved, made better because of that research.
But again, sorry for being a dick. :)
> There is a lot of mis-information around artificial sweeteners
Sure is. And perhaps you're contributing to it. You sure haven't produced any evidence that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
> it just triggers my "Frustrated with the internet"
Well, your belligerent responses to people's polite, reasonable comments kind of trigger that in me. Let's not be part of the problem...
> look up where we are at in current day research
There have been two studies linked to supporting the claims made by myself and others. You haven't posted anything. Take your own advice!
> Diabetic research is huge, it isn't generally something to be skeptical of
And yet we're living in an unprecedented, worldwide obesity epidemic. Someone is obviously very wrong about something. It's my personal belief that in 50 years we'll be looking back on current nutritional "science" the same way we look back on "healthy cigarettes" in the 60s. We'll get it right eventually, but we sure haven't yet.
(edited for politeness)
Try this:
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=diabetes+and+diet&btn...
The rest of your post seems to be just rhetoric vaguely around your injured pride and the subsequent posturing.
Again I am sorry I upset you.
"Data from large, epidemiologic studies support the existence of an association between artificially-sweetened beverage consumption and weight gain in children."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951976/
One thing to keep in mind is that studies of diet and nutrition are always very hazy and go back and forth constantly. Human lifespans are long and diets are complex, so it's difficult to say whether or not any one thing is "harmless." Saturated fats were thought to be a major cause of heart disease for a long time, but now that's apparently no longer true.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230367840...
I don't think comparing anti-diet soda drinkers and antivaxers is really a fair comparison. Soda and artificial sweeteners aren't in any way beneficial for anybody; vaccines save countless lives.
And stop invoking the word "science" like it's an infallible deity whispering in your (and only your) ear. Science is a process and IMO the result is not in on this one yet.
Okay, I get it, you are upset that I implied you were an anti-vaccer.
I'm sorry for being facetious too: No smiling, serious business here.
> Science is a process and IMO the result is not in on this one yet.
On aspartame it's well and truly in. That's my point. If I haven't provided enough references, just google[0] it and read ALL the science. It's been studied to death and back again.
I hate to say it, but now you're the one being a dick. :(
[0] scholar.google.com
In my informal surveys, some people think Diet Coke tastes sweeter than regular Coke, and some people think regular Coke tastes sweeter. In general, people seem to prefer the one that tastes less sweet.
I avoid all artificial sweeteners (and Stevia) for essentially the same reasons as grandparent BTW.
But even if one pays attention only to peer-reviewed studies, one will make bad decisions if one misinterprets them. Your dismissal of the author of grandparent as someone who doesn't "believe in science" suggests to me that you do not know how correctly to interpret the peer-reviewed studies here (which again I believe do not point strongly in either direction). (For most questions people have about diet and health, the peer-reviewed studies, when interpreted correctly, do not point strongly in any one direction.)
In particular, studies showing that aspartame does not induce an insulin response are not particularly strong evidence against grandparent's assertion that with all of the artificial sweeteners, <<there's some kind of message at play - "lots of sugar coming, blood, get ready!">> For something as central to the metabolism of living things as the common dietary sugars, there will be hundreds of molecules besides insulin involved.
It would take many many paragraphs to explain the case against artificial sweeteners in enough detail for there to be any hope of your following the explanation. I do not want to write those paragraphs. I'm just briefly adding my support to what I consider an illuminating and well-written comment (grandparent).
See, you sound exactly like an anti-vacser... Insulin is the "Lots of sugar coming, blood, get ready" response. There isn't hundreds of other molecules involved... there is insulin. Do you see type I diabetics injecting anything else into themselves?
Please, take many paragraphs and explain, because your vague bullshit ridden comment, is far from convincing.
Remember, the dose makes the poison.
Seriously, I do not understand your reaction here - what part of this habit is sufficiently terrible to warrant a comparison to smoking?
update - references added:
Kidney issues http://www.kidney.org/news/KidneyCare/spring10/DietSoda.cfm
Dental issues http://www.wda.org/your-oral-health/sip-all-day
Vascular issues: http://www.miami.edu/index.php/news/releases/study_finds_pos...
Too much milk can give you kidney stones. Too much fruit juice gives you cavities. Too much coffee stains your teeth and gives you, what was it, high blood pressure? On and on.
Of course, too much coffee or tea will kill you the same way.
If anything you're more likely to get messed up from the diuretic effects.
I'm drinking my second Diet Coke (with Splenda®) of the day right now. I find it to be a nice way to get a continual, low-dose of caffeine. More importantly, the flavor and fizz is very refreshing and has good mouth-feel.
Not everything "good" is measured by some objective health metric. And the "bad" about Diet Coke likely pales in comparison to the countless other "bad" factors in people's lives.
Coke is just sugared soda, or artificially sweetened soda. (Yes, I also drink a can of soda once in a while, but that's maybe a can per month.)