Well, that is really not how things work. In order to determine whether or not to do something, one must compare the magnitudes and likelihoods of potential benefits that might result from any given course of action with the magnitudes and likelihoods of potential detriments that may result from that same course of action. Does the expected benefit of doing something outweigh the expected benefit of not doing that thing, and is the difference enough, in one’s estimation, to outweigh any detriments that doing that thing might incur? If so, then it is perhaps a good idea to do that thing.
PS. Acesulfame potassium has been much more extensively safety-tested than most of the things in your soap. Or carrots. Or chicken.
And aspartame is probably the most tested substance in the history of the FDA.
This fact is irrelevant to aspartame foes. They just have a gut-feeling that it’s poison. And there are always “Drs.” like Joseph Mercola to push woo as science to capitalize on those gut feelings.
A 600-lb man in a hot pink tube top is also excessive. Do you want me to back this up with proof too? Or am I allowed to have my humble opinion in a forum called “IMHO”.
It would be easy to show why a person weighing 600 pounds is unhealthy.
Not sure why you think you’re not allowed to have an opinion. On the contrary, you seem to think that we aren’t allowed to challenge or disagree with your opinion
So by “excessive,” you don’t mean “potentially harmful”. You just mean that it offends your sense of morals or aesthetics. That’s nice, I guess, but I don’t think those aspects of his Coke Zero habit are the ones that the OP is interested in exploring, as they have no real effect on anybody’s health.
How things work? How what works? Life? Because in my life, I operate with risks in mind whether I’m conscious of them or not. I buckle my seat belt. I look both ways before I cross the street. I lock my doors. Even if everyone tells me that my neighborhood is perfectly safe, I assume it’s not.
I don’t do a sober cost-benefit analysis at every decision point I face in life. I don’t think anyone does this. All of us choose to listen to our guts at some level. Some people’s guts say “Go ahead! One more won’t hurt ya!” and some people’s say, “I think we’ve had enough for the day.” Who’s gut is more likely to be wrong? I don’t like being wrong, so I avoid it when I can.
It’s funny because I’m an analytical person who actively FIGHTS against my gut. I just also happen to be cautious of certain things with questionable utility. Who knew this was such a god-awful bad way of approaching life?
I don’t see anything wrong in what I have said. I don’t think my opinion (that it is better to assume risk than no risk) is deserving of all the hysterics from you and others. So I’m trying to figure out what the deal is.
I ain’t got no problem with challenges. If “assume there are risks and act accordingly” is such horrible advice, then tell me what is good advice so that I can fall in line with everyone else.
What would excessive Coke Zero consumption be to you? Because I guaran-damn-tee everyone lurking and posting on the StraightDope has a number in mind. Most people’s would be higher than mine, but we all have a number. Does this mean we’re all irrationally paranoid? Or does it mean we know that Coke Zero has some non-negligible risk associated with it, and that it is quite possible to consume too much of anything?
Four obviously isn’t your cut-off. This just means you have a lot more trust corporate institutions and regulatory agencies than I have. Don’t see what the big deal is. It’s not like I’m fixin’ to take the OP’s Coke Zeros out of his refrigerator and lock him in rehab.
Again with the irony. You need to re-read this thread if you think anyone here has displayed a fraction of the hysterics that you have.
For the 3rd time, I don’t have a problem with that statement. Nice strawman, though. Be sure to give it hell.
As a public official, I’m always asked if stuff is safe.
Like, people are always asking if it’s safe to go swimming in X waterbody.
Even if I know there have been no problems found in that waterbody, I never tell anyone that a waterbody is safe. It’s not fair to them to say such a thing, because I know there are limits to what we know. All I can say is that we haven’t found any problems there. And I tell them that no matter where you swim, you’re taking a risk. Always, I tell them how they can mitigate those risks. Don’t swim right after it rains. Stay away from turbid, discolored waters. Don’t swim if you’ve got open cuts and sores. Stay out of the water if you aren’t feeling well. Etc.
By doing this, I’m not giving anyone a false sense of security. I’m also covering MY ass, just in case something does happen. But by saying no problems have been found, I avoid offending the nice folks who pollute X waterbody and pay the state big bucks for the priviledge of doing so. I save the state’s ass. Guess who’s ass gets covered more?
If I equivocate in this way, I know good and well other public officials do too. That is why you can’t get a straight answer, Nzinga. Straight answers are often politically inconvenient.
If that bitch remark is what has made everyone lose their heads, then I’m sorry for being provocative. I don’t apologize for my feelings, though. I hate Coke, despite loving its taste and being from Atlanta.
No offense, but it seems like your hatred for Coke is clouding your objectivity with regard to how likely the OP’s diet soda habit is to be harmful to his health. As far as current clinical research indicates, the answer to that question is pretty solidly stuck at “Not particularly likely.”
I actually think I just know a lot more about food additive safety than you do.
The OP can trust current clinical research and keep drinking away with nary a worry. Or he can maintain a healthy level of skepticism and STILL keep drinking away, but incorporate some mitigating behaviors just for good measure. Like making sure his dental hygiene is tighter than tight and taking supplements to protect his bone health.
Agree or disagree?
I’d make him say five Hail Marys and take a drink from the holy water fountain.
Seriously, whether or not he drinks Coke Zero is not a huge determinant in whether I would advise him to keep good dental hygiene habits. Calcium supplementation is unlikely to do him any harm (although it might increase the risk of certain types of kidney stone in those predisposed to developing them), but it’s also a somewhat onerous regimen and probably not anywhere near as beneficial for his musculo-skeletal health as his daily-gym going will end up being.
Overall, I don’t see that there’s all that much “health atonement” that the OP needs to make for his Coke Zero habit. Were I his physician, I’d congratulate him for getting off the sugared soda and move on to the hernia test.
On a side note, I have been drinking coke for at least 25 years and only have had one small filling done on my teeth, dentist is very happy with my teeth, im 40 yrs old, my wife hopes our kids have good teeth like me,so far so good , my father too has very good teeth and he is 70, could be lucky with very good genes or coke isn’t as bad for teeth as everyone thinks.
Coke’s high phosphoric acid content appears to be rough on the kidneys:
More here:
Wut? 
:dubious: