Does Veeky Forums drink zero calories/sugar drinks? If not, why?

Does Veeky Forums drink zero calories/sugar drinks? If not, why?

Other urls found in this thread:

cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/aspartame.html
snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp
dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3785753/How-sugar-industry-paid-prestigious-Harvard-researchers-say-fat-NOT-sugar-caused-heart-disease.html
ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071114_cardio-tobacco/
jsad.com/doi/full/10.15288/jsad.2017.78.173
youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZDQKq2F08
adweek.com/brand-marketing/throwback-thursday-when-doctors-prescribed-healthy-cigarette-brands-165404/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

nope. if im gonna splurge on some soda i will drink the real thing, cane sugar and all. no point in giving myself cancer of the dick with diet coke

Coke is nice because it's packed full of sugar. I don't like diet versions at all, so unless I'm out for a meal and can't drink, I'll have a full fat coke.

Fanta Zero is decent compared to the real thing, but I'm not fussed by fizzy drinks.

instead of sugar they put aspartam in it. enjoy your stroke and dementia.
aspartam can go through the blood-brain-barrier and kills your brain. aspartam is even more harmfull then sugar.

No, scared of aspartame

Just drink La Croix.

>Zero sugar
>It's actually worst for your health than the normal one

No because I'm quitting caffeine

no need to buy the expensive brand name stuff, the generic seltzer water is great too. Its what I used to quit soda.

same. I'm trying to quit drinking coffee and caffeine

God I love this shit so much

no. Just because it doesn't have sugar doesn't mean its good for you. Dont fall for the /sip/ meme
Plus I love protein shakes too much

True, the generic brand shit is good too. I usually get regular, lemon, lime, or pomegranate.

Shit is fucking good.

No
Diabetes > cancer
And zero not even taste good

How do people still think drinking aspartame in pop is enough to give you cancer? This is a myth going back to the early days of the internet.

if i have a sodie pop it's gonna be sugar free everytime

I drink water mostly though, but a sips or coke zero is nice with a meal

No. I'm not a kid anymore. Stopped drinking all those crap at age 16.

I think Zero has a better flavour, maybe because I am not a child that craves the taste of sugar like an infant?

This. I don't drink enough of Coke Zero to be dependant on it, but it's nice for that once a week fast food stint. If I were to buy 4 2L of it a week, I'd sure as well just drink regular coke and kill myself normally.

Unironically fucking kill yourselves.

show me proof that aspartam is not harmfull or shut up

show concrete proof that it is retard you're the one that made the statement

No, I'm not an infant who buys in to giant corporations' marketing.
Be sure to pick up your ice cold COKE ZERO™, consumer! Hey, why not pick up another few cans? It's ZERO SUGAR after all!

yes goy drink these chemicals

I doubt a can or two of coke zero is going to give me cancer. BPA in clear plastic of the coke bottle is more likely to give you the cancer, as well as the benzonate in the coke itself, but you think what you like about aspartame.

I am sure you're a really smart person since you think Jews are literally controlling everything in the world. You know there's solid advice when the alt-right step in... they understand meme culture after all.

>sugar is good for you goy, avoid fats!
>buy my soda
>chemicals are good for you goy, avoid sugars!
>buy my diet soda

Burden of proof is clearly on you here

I like the taste of diet coke better.
I'll drink one if someone offers or if I order a pizza or something, otherwise I never buy them.
can't stand regular soda, something about the sugar makes it taste shit

low iq

No, it's bad for you and a waste of money. Only acceptable drinks are water, tea, coffee, and milk

>La Croix
I have only seen this drink in the hands of absolute soyboy hipsters. What is the appeal? I tried it and it just tastes like flavored mineral water

It's been studied extensively.

Though, to be fair, there are still a lot of studies ongoing.

as far as artificial sweeteners being cancer, I've only seen proof saccharin causes cancer

>show me a study that says x is bad or y is good


How do people maintain this level of trust in (((science))) when every study is paid for by one entity or another? People used to trust studies that implied smoking was good for you, that sugar was a healthier alternative to calorie dense fats.

Use your fucking brain, is ingesting a tonic of chemicals designed to be as tasty and addictive as possible likely to be good for you? Do you really think any and all groups involved in research aren't getting kickbacks from the industry? Do you really think the negative implications that do get found aren't buried and obfuscated?

It took many decades for the real damage of sugar, smoking and alcohol to be realized. During which most of the scientific community was complicit in conducting bad science, designed to discredit and muddy the waters around and health risks.

The scientific bodies at US universities helped experiment with psychological and physical torture on US citizens just last century for gods sake.

Science, just like Charity, is just a word. It does not imply truth or good intention, it is not a holy badge of sainthood, it is just as corruptible as anything else.

drinking this rn lmao

Zero calorie soda taste like shit and is still bad for you. If i'm going to be drinking liquid cancer i'd prefer it to not taste like absolute shit.

they fuck my teeth so no

besides when cutting it's much easier to havea small eating window and then eat nothing for the rest of the day (rather than sipping on shit which just makes you crave more)

Yup Coke Cola is both anti-semitic for not dealing with Israel, but also jewish propaganda. You're literally just talking about the lizard people, but unironically.

So glad you're here to help us all understand that Hitler is the Light. No one would understand that relgions are crazy and have no place in society if not you for you.

>milk is not over prices or unhealthy
Yes... of course. It's as cheap as bottled water is.

Most places give you a bigger serving of soft drink then they do for tea coffee and milk, so I am sure for a little guy like you that an entire cup of tea is hard for you to finish. I can down an extra large black coffee before work. Lactose intolerant, and don't drink enough caffeine to be able to drink 5 cups of coffee a day.

I mean you're not wrong, my girlfriend would agree with you. But life is full of people that make you seem like a weak pathetic beta male.

I wish I could eat as much a girl... it would be cheaper, you're right.

To be honest user I'm not convinced its the kikes, but I wouldn't be surprised. More likely a cabal of cheeky globalists beholden only to money and power, with more than its fair share of Jews but not exclusively Jewish.

cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/aspartame.html

I mean, because beyond crediblity there's also validity. Just because some clickbait article says "10 reasons aspertame gives you cancer" doesn't mean it's real, but when organizations with valid facts put their reputation on the line.

Like Alex Jones talking about issues risks literally nothing, so how can that be credible.

What you need to do is find valid sources, instead of equating all sources as equals, you dumb nigger faggot kike.

tl;dr stop being dumb, is how you be smart.

It's just flavored soda water.

THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT.

How's 17 treating you

Science has never implied morality. It's simply knowledge. Knowledge has no good or bad, like any tool. A pen is neither evil nor good, just like language is a tool. A construct by humanity, an extension of ourselves.

The only things deemed good and evil is the intentions behind actions. Actions being the result of following the intentions.

Science is not given a pass at being real, the opposite.

The main idea of science is to disprove science. Only relgions takes ideas and make them seems incorruptible and infallible.

Science main goal is to disprove itself. It would be better to just know the facts, but unless you have a better method, it is the best way.

Denying anything can be known about the world is just lazy, apathetic, and obviously retarded on so many levels.

We know it's not perfect, no one calls it perfect, the problem is more how you get your information than the information themselves. It's good thing you have access to literally countless databases for information now, so you can make up your own mind, but you instead to choose nihilism, and nothing is real.

We call them 'rich people' in my world. You can choose whatever name you want, but trust me you don't really understand it if you think any religion has ANYTHING to do with how the world works in businesses.

>muh valid facts
>muh valid sources
>cancer.org
>the fucking FDA, they were never corrupt right?
>ten studies that say aspartame doesn't cause cancer!

You trust too easily sweet summer child. Not to mention that cancer is just one potential risk. By all means keep on chugging. Science could never fail you!

If you think that tribalism and nepotism enacted by a certain (((tribe))) isn't rife within certain industries you are clueless.

I'll just put a truly patrician choice here

DASANI SPARKLING BITCHES

BEST FUCKING SHIT ON THE PLANET

every once in a while I want a coke but can't afford it in my calories. So I get a zero. Fuck diet coke though that shit's nasty.

If I can afford it I'll just get regular coke, but I prefer the mexican bottles.

so usually just water and coffee

The problem is that nobody has the fucking time to sift through all of the information, to verify the integrity of the scientific practice in each study.

It happened with smoking, sugar and alcohol. Countless paid for studies by the industry in question, bad science out the wazoo that used weasel words like 'may improve', 'not conclusive' and generally implied that the water was muddy.

>Denying anything can be known about the world is just lazy, apathetic, and obviously retarded on so many levels.

You've misunderstood, and consequently misrepresented my point. It's not that we can't draw any conclusions from the world around us.

Joe Brown cannot trust the distributors (the media) of information to give him accurate information. He secondly cannot trust the studies without a disproportionate amount of effort sifting through various studies. Even if he does all of that and doesn't find any evidence that the study outright misleads him, who is to say that the right questions have been asked in said study? Who pays for a study to be done that could potentially damage a multibillion dollar industry.

The distribution of said science, the validity of the science itself and the question of if the real questions are being asked are all weak points that have previously mislead consumers and seen them continue to poison themselves for decades on end.

There's no evidence that artificial sweeteners are bad for you.

meanwhile, there's tons of evidence that real sugar is bad for you.

drinking regular soda is the equivalent of voting republican; dumb people think they're being manipulated or tricked into making the choice that's actually better for them, so they make the worse choice to prove they can

every single one of you who thinks diet soda is worse than regular deserves your diabetes and tooth decay. leave the good stuff for the rest of us who don't want to die tomorrow

Hey man, when you want to start accusing everyone and everything as invalid you're just arguing with reality at that point.

Unless you got proof of FDA corruption with this.

The fact is that some carcinogens build up over time and some need to be given in large doses.

All food cooked at high temperatures have carcinogens in them, but you need to eat like a truck load of fries for that to be viable.

If you want to distrust the fabric of reality itself, and say that all carcinogens are bad regardless of moderations, than that's your call too. The fact is links to cancer and most foods is hard to prove, regardless of the cabal of lizard people you get radio messages from in your teeth fillings.

Cancer is one of the most studied diseases, so it's not like little is known of it, but your body literally makes cancerous cells so it's easy to say anything can give you cancer.

Just remember cell phones still give you cancer, but you can't find any studies about that, because the illuminati must have killed them all in car accidents or something.

All you can say is that:
>more people drink aspartame
>more people got cancer
>checkmate atheists

Either way, it's not like products hide the fact they contain aspartame.

So beyond the fact that aspartame is one of the most thoroughly tested of food additives, your only argument is
>THE US FDA IS TRYING TO KILL PEOPLE

When all else false, blame reality.

snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

"The legitimate attempts that have been made to confirm and replicate allegations of adverse reactions from aspartame ingestion have not been successful and the USFDA continues to consider this to a be among the most thoroughly tested of food additives and that this information continues to confirm the safety of aspartame."

-David G. Hattan, Ph.D.

Acting Director, Division of Health Effects Evaluation

The validity of science is what science is always trying to disprove, unlike religion that is always trying to prove its ownself.

Seriously, if there was something you could prove that said the universe was a hologram you'd win a nobel prize, not be killed with a blackhood over your head for disrupting the (((facts)))

aspartame contains phenylalanine it's good for you goyim ͡

>THE US FDA IS TRYING TO KILL PEOPLE
No. I am not arguing with reality. I'm simply saying that the FDA like any other entity including our beloved scientific researchers, cannot be mindlessly trusted to have your interests in mind.

They have been corrupt before. It's happened with many pharmaceutical drugs that had terrible side effects and/or outright don't do anything positive. The FDA have been caught out in corruption multiple times.

Again, the history of the scientific communities conduct surrounding sugar, smoking and alcohol says it all. This 'reality' you love so much is full of examples of authoritative entities lying to the masses for their own gain.

As I said from the start, it is a matter of trust. I will never understand how people can have such trust in their fellow man.

>The validity of science is what science is always trying to disprove, unlike religion that is always trying to prove its ownself.

I don't know why you think your first year science babble is relevant.

yo this motherfucker KNOWS!!! san pelegrino blood orange flavor is like the best soda there has even been made. if you say otherwise you are welcome to terminate your own worthless lyfe

So what specifically makes aspartame carcinogenic? It's because it crosses the blood brain barrier and makes tumors? I mean is it a radical like asbestos?

anyways, the benzine in both the plastic and the preservative in coke is more carcinogenic if heated up, just so you know.

I've researched the shit out of this already, and even if aspartame is bad for you, like just hard on kidneys to process, limiting it is still smart.

Pop was never made to replace water like most people drink it. I have it maybe once a week. I do my fact checks. I can tell you're the other type of guy.

what does Veeky Forums think of these? 20 cals per can, 5g sugar, 161 mg caffeine, not carbonated, tastes like an arnold palmer. These have been amazing for a recovering fatty like me. I'll drink an average of 1 per week.

People who mistrust research "just because" and then draw their own conclusions about something "just because" should be hanged publicly.

You don't have to believe research. In fact, it's probably for the best that you don't. But that doesn't also mean you have to treat the most insidious and crazy conspiracy theory like it's the next best thing.

I don't know that aspartame or any of the other various artificial sweeteners and additives they put in the 0 sugar cocktails are carcinogenic My whole point is that its ridiculous to trust any of the bastards involved to be beholden to any interests but their own.

Yeah plastics in the food supply are pretty dodgy. Carcinogens aside, the xenoestrogens that seep out of them and their effect on the endocrine system might be this centuries 'wtf smoking these tubes of chemicals is bad for us??' moment. Or it might be the artificial sweeteners.

>I do my fact checks. I can tell you're the other type of guy.
Yeah well you're the kind of guy to miss the point for 10 posts in a row.

>Does Veeky Forums drink zero calories/sugar drinks

energy drinks are cancer. Worse than soda in every way.

>I don't know that aspartame or any of the other various artificial sweeteners and additives they put in the 0 sugar cocktails are carcinogenic

So why assume that they are? Why assume at all that they're "bad for you"? Simply because someone else has made the claim that they aren't?

People too stupid to see the pattern of misleading 'research' about harmful consumer products distributed by the same media outlets decade on decade deserve to be publicly hanged.

>Smoking is good for you
>Fat makes you fat, sugar is good for you
>Alcohol makes you live longer
>I bet these new sweetners are fucking awful for us, remember how they lied about the other shit?
>wtf no ur crazy

Nah I'm on a bulk

are any of those actual studies or did you just fall for deceptive marketing

>So why assume that they are?
Firstly I assume that anything that is too good to be true, is. Artificial sweeteners, zero calorie soda? Are you fucking kidding me?

>Wait you mean I can drink this soda and not get fat? You mean I can smoke this ciggy and have it curb my appetite? You mean I can drink this alcohol and be more confident? You mean I can eat that sugary chocolate bar instead of full cream milk and its better for me?

The experts would have said yes in their time. The shitposters of the day would have raged at you to post source if you questioned these truths.

Secondly I don't outright assume they are carcinogenic. Sure, it could be that, or it could be that they raise your risk of alzheimers or any number of other obscure diseases.

Remember leaded petrol? History is full of examples of humans giving zero fucks and introducing dangerous things to their food supply and general environment. I don't trust the new things and I don't trust the people in authority to have my interests in mind.

Because it's a fucking meme. It's cancer without the fun. They also taste like shit. Might as well drink alcohol free beer or something.

I am sorry if I missed the point, but seriously I fact check something and make a choice in life. I don't dedicate my life to remembering everything I learned to recite in class for my teachers.

There's only so much you can remember and I just try to live my life as intelligently as possible, but also live as freely as I can. I decide what I do. I know I seem like some random guy on the internet, but even before the internet I was a kid that would sit and think, and ask questions and would find answers.

If I couldn't find an answer, I would find someone that had an answer. Then I find more questions to ask. It's never really an end, but I'll tell you I've looked into everything and have talked to a lot of people higher up than you can imagine.

There are no secrets in this world, everything is there to know if you want. Don't think there are any secrets that you are missing. I use to be like that, thinking that something was always behind the curtain just to find out, the truth is actually quite plain but how it all connects is so deep it's impossible to fully articulate.

Facts are simple, the effects are much much much more complex. Most science studies simply state the facts, and it's the news companies that cherry pick or twist or even fabricate the truths. I use the news to find leads, and then do my own research to find the facts, weight the risk and effects my ownself, and make my choice once I have as many sources, and opposing sources as possible.

When in doubt, call someone. That's a really hard task to do but really most of them want to talk, it's just celebrities like movie stars and directors that are the hardest to reach.

I actually did a scheme pretending to be an online magazine starting up to get interviews with them was the easiest way. But most doctors and law markers can always make time, the academics usually have the most free time and did a lot of studying with sources.

The only limits are the ones you impose.

I drink it all the time.
Better than non-alcoholic beer, which is what I used to drink.
Don't really want to drink plain water unless I'm thirsty.

>The experts would have said yes in their time.
again, was this an actual published study or are you just falling for literally lying in ads which has been a federal offense since like the 70's.

you're literally retarded

i bet you think GMOs are unsafe too because "We just don't know"

motherfucker, it's obvious that you don't know a lot of shit. but that doesn't mean the government is lying to you. it just means you're ignorant and live in a fantasy world where everyone is out to get you and you're the star of your own version of the DaVinci Code

Nah I'm not talking about misleading advertising. The history of studies/researchers being funded by the relevant industries goes back over a century.

dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3785753/How-sugar-industry-paid-prestigious-Harvard-researchers-say-fat-NOT-sugar-caused-heart-disease.html

ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071114_cardio-tobacco/

jsad.com/doi/full/10.15288/jsad.2017.78.173

The other thing that is very important is that these lobbies (just like the big pharma with FDA) routinely influence policy and national guidelines. Of course they have a history of misleading with existing studies, and the governments never do their due diligence in checking these fucks aren't bullshitting.

>not trusting a revolutionary new cocktail of chemicals is retarded
>not trusting that the government will have your interests in mind is retarded
>not trusting that the scientists won't take their kickbacks and call it a day is retarded

Hmm I guess I'm a retard. I wonder how many people died as a result of not being my brand of retarded last century.

it's a very different world than it was 60 years ago. If you choose to cling to the past that's your own fault.

As stated in the fucking article you even posted on sugar, the journal reporting that study did not require disclosing conflicts of interest until 1984. Shit like that doesn't fly anymore.

There are more government-published studies now than ever before, and most of them are extremely non-leaning and objective. Yes, in the past they were unable to get past the giant corporations that were lying, but I'd hardly believe that any practicing doctor in the 1950's would recommend smoking.

Why do you think Coca-Cola is laying off so many employee's as of recent? Because the whole world is drinking less soda as health becomes more prevalent in the mainstream. Fast food companies are trying to revamp their menus to have healthy options at disposal so that people will still come buy from them as opposed to a local place or making their own food.

People are smarter than you think, and just because a study says something doesn't mean every expert, mother, and child believes it.

Yeah, but anyone who ever believed those things was an idiot.

Are you an idiot, user?

Believing that smoking is good for you even though it definitely makes you feel worse, that's the smoker's fault and no one else's.

If you think that something is better for you because it's "fat free" but contains more calories because of all the added sugar, again that's your fault for believing something nonsensical.

When has anyone ever believed alcohol would make you live longer? It makes no sense, even if a study or advertiser said this was the case, it's obviously not.

People actually die/get sick from the misconceptions you've listed here. No one has ever gotten cancer from drinking diet coke, not even anecdotally. It's simply not a thing. You believe it is, though, because you want to be contrarian and you like feeling as though you figured something out that the rest of us have not.

>drinking diabete
>switching to cancer version to avoid diabete while continuing to drink shit
retard

newsflash you're still going to die lol probably for the same reasons and at about the same age as everyone else

>people actually get diabetes and die because they drink regular soda
>no one gets cancer from drinking diet soda except for rats who ingest 10x their body weight in pure aspartame every single day

absolutely the same thing, you're right

>haha yeah smoking drinking alcohol and eating sugar instead of fats but they were going to die anyway and why won't you just trust the zero sugar drinks?!?!?!

remember when nitocine wasn't addictif ?

youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZDQKq2F08

not my point. my point is that you're obsessed with artificial sweeteners causing cancer, but there's probably a million other things that are going to kill you that you don't even know about. so you can't really be that worried about it.

the state of California released their guidelines for safe usage of wifi/cell signals. have you read them? you know, just to be safe. or are they lying? maybe unchecked wireless signals are the cure for cancer and THEY don't want us to have it yet? ;)

>it's a very different world than it was 60 years ago
Not in regards to the corruption within government and scientific research it isn't

>I'd hardly believe that any practicing doctor in the 1950's would recommend smoking.
Funny you should say that.

adweek.com/brand-marketing/throwback-thursday-when-doctors-prescribed-healthy-cigarette-brands-165404/

My nan even got a prescription of cigarettes to smoke per week in the late 40s.

>Yeah, but anyone who ever believed those things was an idiot.
Hindsight is 20/20.

>No one has ever gotten cancer from drinking diet coke
You don't know that. People didn't know that cigarettes/alcohol/sugar or leaded makeup were killing them.

Sometimes

>my point is that you're obsessed with artificial sweeteners causing cancer
But that isn't true. My position from my first post has been that I do not understand the blind trust people have for scientific studies when history is littered with them being corrupted by the related industries and misleading people for decades on end.

You're right, I'm not that worried about it. I simply don't drink the stuff because I don't trust that it isn't bad for me. We aren't talking about the million other things that might be killing us right now, though I do make a point of avoiding plastics around my food.

If the FDA and "the government" are so comfortable lying to us, why do they ever change at all? Why/how would it benefit "them" to change the rhetoric regarding cigarettes or alcohol?

remember folks, compagnies selling these product don't give a flying shit about your health

Mostly water, but sometimes I'll have a zero/max, yeah.

It didn't benefit anyone associated in any way with the industries to change their stance. Be that governments receiving massive taxation, individuals in government receiving kickbacks and anyone involved in the science/distribution of science receiving the same. In the case of smoking and alcohol the evidence gathered by entities that weren't corrupt eventually became too strong and so the official line had to change.

Probably because that's exactly what it is kek.

Why don't you just do some research? You can't possibly believe that every single outlet for consumer health research is in the pocket of the FDA. That's just crazy. Maybe some of them are.
But even if there are conflicting findings from two different researchers, why do you only assume the dishonest one is the one you don't agree with?

>Why don't you just do some research?
Not an argument.
>You can't possibly believe that every single outlet for consumer health research is in the pocket of the FDA.
I didn't say that I do.
>even if there are conflicting findings from two different researchers, why do you only assume the dishonest one is the one you don't agree with?
I don't

I don't trust the new products aren't bad for me. I don't trust that those responsible for testing them exclusively have my best interests at heart. Nor do I trust that they are capable of testing the long term health implications of a product that is only a few decades into human consumption.

The history of smoking/sugar/alcohol and many other examples like lead in makeup and petrol are more than enough to make me cautious of the products themselves. The history of the studies created for the sole purpose of making consumers trust these products is more than enough to make me unwilling to take 'scientific researchers' at their word. The history of corruption within the FDA is enough to make me not trust them so far as I could kick them.

Once and awhile I will partake. But as a general rule I try to keep them out of my diet.

I love Diet Coke

When cutting, yes, when maintaining and bulking, no.

cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/aspartame.html

And low iq autists just got BTFO.

After getting used to zero sugar drinks I can't even drink regular soda anymore. It makes me sick how sweet it is.

>pop