A 2009 study proclaimed that it had found diet soda “linked to metabolic syndrome”.
Is there a cause-effect relationship here? It seems baffling that anyone would go to the trouble to publish something analagous to saying “Wearing XXXL shirts is strongly linked to obesity, so let’s try to wear smaller clothes.”
The link points to a sign-in screen, so I can’t read the abstract, but it’s in general very difficult to establish a causal relationship in scenarios like this.
So far every thing I have read (and I’m not really a qualified reviewer) has only pointed to correlation, not causation.
In my on experience, I can say that if I drink soda it has been diet for years and I have been very overweight - but I also can lose if I am dedicated. The thing is, if you don’t stop consuming all the *other *bad things, the best you can achieve is - you just aren’t adding to an already overloaded caloric consumption.
This drives me batty. It’s TOTALLY correlational. What is being argued, not just with this study (i didnt read it) but with the whole “diet pop makes you fat” argument is that your body is accustomed to calories accompanying sweet, sugary-like tastes (like that found in diet pop). So when you drink something with that taste that DOESN"T also have those calories, your body will continue to crave those calories, so you will consume them elsewhere, thereby negating-sometimes even overdoing-the benefit of that non-caloric “treat”. Your craving for carbohydrates will necessarily spike when you consume these beverages (according to this theory). So, when one drinks diet pop as a way to help reduce calories and lose weight, they are actually making it more difficult on themselves than if they didn’t drink that diet pop at all in the first place.
So are you arguing for causation or correlation? You’re contradicting yourself.
Sure, that’s what the “diet pop is evil” people say, but is it true? In my case, at least, it isn’t. Diet soda seems to work just as well as water for me. I don’t crave calories any more or less when I drink either. Now, if they could only make a zero calorie beer with all the flavor and buzz of a regular brew. 
I agree 1000%
I have PCOS/insulin resistance and my insulin levels were in the pre-diabetic range. I went on a careful (though not extremely restrictive in terms of total calories) diet that included tremendous amounts of artificial sweeteners: not just diet soda, but in my oatmeal, along with other sugar-free things (I have a bad sweet tooth). I did cut out a lot of carbs (though not “low-carb” range). My insulin levels dropped down to low-normal. For myself, there seems to be no connection.
43 30 north, 73 35 west.
The real problem with Diet Sodas is the aspertame that causes MS and cancer and is addictive. Research that was completed in the '70’s had the FDA ban it originally until Donald Rumsfeld (then a lobbyist, oh and investor in the company manufacturing) got it passed. It is in everything that says “diet” or “lite” and even in things you would least suspect. My son in law who is a Type I diabetic developed MS at the age of 29. Lost all use of his left side of his body. When he stopped using all products containing aspertame and changed his diet he regained the use of everything but his left hand. He is in remission with no new lesions on his brain and spine. This will continue to be a life long issue for him and many others as a result of “diet sodas”. They are toxic and poison and should be banned. The addictive nature of the aspertame has people drinking more than they are even aware. Very few people drink only one diet soda a day, which may be the correlation to the weight gain. Google this and find out ALL the health issues related “diet” products and then PLEASE do not put your health at risk by using them!
Care to back up any of these bold claims with a shred of evidence??
I don’t know about the rest but the cancer claim appears to be valid.
In animal studies, aspartame converts for formaldehyde (a known carcinogen) in the body and accumulates in the tissues causing malignant tumors, lymphomas, and carcinomas. This occurs even at dosages that are considerably smaller that what we’ve been told is safe.
Cite?
None of those things have ever been even remotely proven. from the wiki Aspartame Controversy:
This Snopesarticle deals with all the common claims about the ill effects of aspartame (incidentally almost all made up by one lady - Betty Martini - who has no scientific training of any kind at all).
Apart from the complete lack of any evidence to suggest aspartame is harmful despite the fact that it has been approved all over the world for more than 30 years, it’s worth noting that aspartame fearers accuse it of causing everything from MS to cancer to memory loss to arthritis. It’s completely implausible that one substance would be the cause of so many things - even known toxins that have been well studied are not linked to so many ill effects.
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.8711
As far as I know there are no long-term studies of aspartame consumption in humans, but do you really want to risk getting cancer for a diet soda?
Also see here:
So drinking diet soda appears to be able to cause a known carcinogen (formaldehyde) to accumulate throughout your body.
Aspartame, distributed under several trade names (e.g., NutraSweet® and Equal®), was approved in 1981 by the FDA after numerous tests showed that it did not cause cancer or other adverse effects in laboratory animals. Questions regarding the safety of aspartame were renewed by a 1996 report suggesting that an increase in the number of people with brain tumors between 1975 and 1992 might be associated with the introduction and use of this sweetener in the United States. However, an analysis of then-current NCI statistics showed that the overall incidence of brain and central nervous system cancers began to rise in 1973, 8 years prior to the approval of aspartame, and continued to rise until 1985. Moreover, increases in overall brain cancer incidence occurred primarily in people age 70 and older, a group that was not exposed to the highest doses of aspartame since its introduction. These data do not establish a clear link between the consumption of aspartame and the development of brain tumors.
In 2005, a laboratory study found more lymphomas and leukemias in rats fed very high doses of aspartame (equivalent to drinking 8 to 2,083 cans of diet soda daily) (1). However, there were some inconsistencies in the findings. For example, the number of cancer cases did not rise with increasing amounts of aspartame as would be expected. An FDA statement on this study can be found at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2006/ucm108650.htm on the Internet.
Subsequently, NCI examined human data from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study of over half a million retirees. Increasing consumption of aspartame-containing beverages was not associated with the development of lymphoma, leukemia, or brain cancer (2).
The reality is, many things consumed by people create formaldehyde in the body, namely citrus fruits like oranges and grapefruits, tomatoes, and alcohol to name a few, some in much greater quantaties than what’s found in artificial sweeteners.
My wife and I have been drinking those wonderful diet drinks ever since aspartame came on the market in 1983. Drink all you want and get 0 calories! For years we would kill a 2 liter bottle after our daily 3 mile walk. Also use aspartame in ice tea and for food.
Had all that internet BS about aspartame been true we both would have been dead years ago.
I also spent 32 years in the petrochemical industry. Everything we made or used in the process was on EPA Hazardous Chemical list. And I been retired almost 22 years! Still walking 3 miles a day and using Aspartame.