Source: Nwo Report
Zero calorie sodas such as Coke Zero and Pepsi Max are slowly but surely becoming the next generation of diet soft drinks. Based on their popularity, people are obviously drinking them, but if they don’t contain any calories, then what exactly is it that you’re drinking?
As a result of consuming too much processed food that’s high in sugar and refined carbohydrates, the majority of the population is overweight and many of the people who are trying to slim down by cutting calories are failing miserably. As such, zero calorie beverages such as Coke Zero and Pepsi Max are not the answer to weight loss that many people believe them to be, and to make matters worse, the chemical additives in these beverages can compromise your health.
Coke Zero and Pepsi Max
Most diet sodas, including Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi, have been virtually calorie free for years. As such, Coke Zero and Pepsi Max are nothing more than diet sodas with some new ingredients and a unique marketing spin. The following are some of the more notable ingredients found in Coke Zero and Pepsi Max that don’t exist in their full calorie Coke and Pepsi counterparts.
Aspartame is an artificial sweetener that’s considered by many health experts to be one of the most dangerous food additives in existence. Despite a significant amount of controversy, aspartame is frequently associated with cancer, neurological disorders including Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease, and a very long list of other conditions and unpleasant symptoms.
Much of the controversy surrounding aspartame is fueled by corporate interest. In the late 1990s, Dr. Ralph Walden showed how significant this influence is by conducting a peer review of the 165 studies that were available at the time and were related to the safety of aspartame for humans. Of these studies, 74 were funded by corporations with financial ties to aspartame and the other 91 were funded by independent sources. All of the research that had financial ties to aspartame deemed it to be safe while 92% of the independent research indicated otherwise.
Acesulfame potassium, often referred to as Acesulfame K, is another artificial sweetener that’s increasing in popularity. Although more research needs to be done on Acesulfame K, it’s been shown to promote cancer and increased insulin production in animals.
Potassium benzoate is a food preservative that’s used to prevent the growth of yeast, mold, and bacteria. It’s drawn a lot of negative attention due to it’s potential to form benzene when combined with vitamin C. Long term exposure to benzene has been found to cause cancer, anemia, suppressed immunity, irregular menstruation, and infertility.
Trading One Problem for Another
As shown by the following table, the biggest difference between Coke Zero, Diet Coke, Pepsi Max, and Diet Pepsi is the introduction of the Acesulfame K sweetener and the reduction of aspartame.
|Coke Zero||Diet Coke||Pepsi Max||Diet Pepsi|
|Acesulfame K||46 mg||0 mg||32 mg||0 mg|
|Aspartame||87 mg||187 mg||123 mg||177 mg|
Although Acesulfame K appears to be much less of a risk than aspartame, it’s safety is still in question, and that leaves Coke Zero and Pepsi Max with two potentially dangerous artificial sweeteners instead of one.
The Max Factor
In addition to being a zero calorie soft drink, Pepsi Max is also marketed for it’s increased caffeine content and the addition of ginseng, both of which give it the appeal of an energy drink. In comparison to the 38 mg of caffeine in regular Pepsi, there’s 69 mg of caffeine in Pepsi Max. The inclusion of ginseng, which is a natural herbal supplement used to promote better mental and physical function, even gives Pepsi Max a bit of a misleading health appeal.
Neither caffeine nor ginseng will ever provide you with the long lasting and balanced sense of energy that can only result from optimal health. Furthermore, frequently relying on caffeine for energy will likely worsen the underlying problem that’s causing you to be tired and eventually lead to adrenal fatigue and poorer health.
Another suspect ingredient in Pepsi Max is calcium disodium EDTA which is commonly used by health professionals to help remove excess metals such as mercury, lead, and iron from the body. What does this have to do with soda you may ask? According to Pepsi, it helps to “protect flavor.” The real reason why it’s in Pepsi Max is to reduce the risk of benzene forming from the potassium benzoate preservative. How nice of Pepsi to look out for us like that.
A Better Perspective on Weight Loss
Clearly, the most obvious reason to drink zero calorie beverages such as Coke Zero and Pepsi Max is to reduce calorie intake, and in turn, lose weight. Ironically, although this is a controversial topic with research supporting both sides, it’s been shown in at least one study that people who rely on artificially sweetened beverages are more likely to gain weight. In association with this, aspartame in particular has been shown to increase appetite and calorie consumption.
Losing weight is no different from increasing your energy in the regard that it’s most effectively done through a healthy lifestyle. Too many people prioritize their appearance over their health, and as a result, fail to understand that pursuing better health and following a healthy diet will naturally lead to weight loss.
No type of soda, regardless of how many or how few calories it has, is ever a good choice. However, by following healthy habits on a regular basis, you’ll be able to enjoy soda in moderation without much impact to your health or weight, and when you do, you might as well enjoy the real thing.
Kids are heavy consumers of soft drinks, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and they are guzzling soda pop at unprecedented rates.
Carbonated soda pop provides more added sugar in a typical 2-year-old toddler’s diet than cookies, candies and ice cream combined.
Fifty-six percent of 8-year-olds down soft drinks daily, and a third of teenage boys drink at least three cans of soda pop per day.
- These popular beverages account for more than a quarter of all drinks consumed in the United States.
- More than 15 billion gallons were sold in 2000.
- That works out to at least one 12-ounce can per day for every man, woman and child.
Not only are soft drinks widely available everywhere, from fast food restaurants to video stores, they’re now sold in 60 percent of all public and private middle schools and high schools nationwide, according to the National Soft Drink Association. A few schools are even giving away soft drinks to students who buy school lunches.
As soda pop becomes the beverage of choice among the nation’s young — and as soda marketers focus on brand-building among younger and younger consumers — public health officials, school boards, parents, consumer groups and even the soft drink industry are faced with nagging questions:
- How healthful are these beverages, which provide a lot calories, sugars and caffeine but no significant nutritional value?
- And what happens if you drink a lot of them at a very young age?
Recently, representatives of the soft drink industry, concerned that public opinion and public policy may turn against them, will staged a three-day “fly-in” to lobby Congress to maintain soft drinks sales in schools; and to educate lawmakers on the “proper perspective” on soft drink use.
The industry plans to counter a US Department of Agriculture proposal, announced in January, that would require all foods sold in schools to meet federal nutrition standards. That would mean that snack foods and soft drinks would have to meet the same standards as school lunches.
Nearly everyone by now has heard the litany on the presumed health effects of soft drinks:
- Tooth decay
- Caffeine dependence
- Weakened bones
But does drinking soda pop really cause those things?
To help separate fact from fiction, the Health section reviewed the latest scientific findings and asked an array of experts on both sides of the debate to weigh in on the topic. Be forewarned, however: Compared with the data available on tobacco and even dietary fat, the scientific evidence on soft drinks is less developed. The results can be a lot like soft drinks themselves, both sweet and sticky.
One very recent, independent, peer-reviewed study demonstrates a strong link between soda consumption and childhood obesity.
One previous industry-supported, unpublished study showed no link. Explanations of the mechanism by which soda may lead to obesity have not yet been proved, though the evidence for them is strong.
Many people have long assumed that soda — high in calories and sugar, low in nutrients — can make kids fat. But until this month there was no solid, scientific evidence demonstrating this.
Reporting in The Lancet, a British medical journal, a team of Harvard researchers presented the first evidence linking soft drink consumption to childhood obesity. They found that 12-year-olds who drank soft drinks regularly were more likely to be overweight than those who didn’t.
For each additional daily serving of sugar-sweetened soft drink consumed during the nearly two-year study, the risk of obesity increased 1.6 times.
Obesity experts called the Harvard findings important and praised the study for being prospective. In other words, the Harvard researchers spent 19 months following the children, rather than capturing a snapshot of data from just one day. It’s considered statistically more valuable to conduct a study over a long period of time.
Researchers found that schoolchildren who drank soft drinks consumed almost 200 more calories per day than their counterparts who didn’t down soft drinks. That finding helps support the notion that we don’t compensate well for calories in liquid form.
Here’s one health effect that even the soft drink industry admits, grudgingly, has merit. In a carefully worded statement, the NSDA says that “there’s no scientific evidence that consumption of sugars per se has any negative effect other than dental caries.” But the association also correctly notes that soft drinks aren’t the sole cause of tooth decay.
In fact, a lot of sugary foods, from fruit juices to candy and even raisins and other dried fruit, have what dentists refer to as “cariogenic properties,” which is to say they can cause tooth decay.
Okay, so how many more cavities are soft drink consumers likely to get compared with people who don’t drink soda? This is where it gets complicated.
A federally funded study of nearly 3,200 Americans 9 to 29 years old conducted between 1971 and 1974 showed a direct link between tooth decay and soft drinks. Numerous other studies have shown the same link throughout the world, from Sweden to Iraq.
But sugar isn’t the only ingredient in soft drinks that causes tooth problems. The acids in soda pop are also notorious for etching tooth enamel in ways that can lead to cavities. “Acid begins to dissolve tooth enamel in only 20 minutes,” notes the Ohio Dental Association in a release issued earlier this month.
The stimulant properties and dependence potential of caffeine in soda are well documented, as are their effects on children.
Ever tried going without your usual cup of java on the weekend? If so, you may have experienced a splitting headache, a slight rise in blood pressure, irritability and maybe even some stomach problems.
These well-documented symptoms describe the typical withdrawal process suffered by about half of regular caffeine consumers who go without their usual dose.
The soft drink industry agrees that caffeine causes the same effects in children as adults, but officials also note that there is wide variation in how people respond to caffeine. The simple solution, the industry says, is to choose a soda pop that is caffeine-free. All big soda makers offer products with either low or no caffeine.
That may be a good idea, though it raises the question of whether soda machines in schools should be permitted to offer caffeinated beverages or at least be obligated to offer a significant proportion of caffeine-free products.
It also raises the question of how one determines a product’s caffeine content. Nutrition labels are not required to divulge that information. If a beverage contains caffeine, it must be included in the ingredient list, but there’s no way to tell how much a beverage has, and there’s little logic or predictability to the way caffeine is deployed throughout a product line.
Okay, so most enlightened consumers already know that colas contain a fair amount of caffeine. It turns out to be 35 to 38 milligrams per 12-ounce can, or roughly 28 percent of the amount found in an 8-ounce cup of coffee. But few know that diet colas — usually chosen by those who are trying to dodge calories and/or sugar — often pack a lot more caffeine.
A 12-ounce can of Diet Coke, for example, has about 42 milligrams of caffeine — seven more than the same amount of Coke Classic. A can of Pepsi One has about 56 milligrams of caffeine — 18 milligrams more than both regular Pepsi and Diet Pepsi.
Even harder to figure out is the caffeine distribution in other flavors of soda pop. Many brands of root beer contain no caffeine. An exception is Barq’s, made by the Coca-Cola Co., which has has 23 milligrams per 12-ounce can. Sprite, 7-Up and ginger ale are caffeine-free. But Mountain Dew, the curiously named Mello Yellow, Sun Drop Regular, Jolt and diet as well as regular Sunkist orange soda all pack caffeine.
Caffeine occurs naturally in kola nuts, an ingredient of cola soft drinks. But why is this drug, which is known to create physical dependence, added to other soft drinks?
The industry line is that small amounts are added for taste, not for the drug’s power to sustain demand for the products that contain it. Caffeine’s bitter taste, they say, enhances other flavors. “It has been a part of almost every cola — and pepper-type beverage — since they were first formulated more than 100 years ago,” according to the National Soft Drink Association.
But recent blind taste tests conducted by Roland Griffiths at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions in Baltimore found that only 8 percent of regular soft drink consumers could identify the difference between regular and caffeine-free soft drinks.
The study included only subjects who reported that they drank soft drinks mainly for their caffeine content. In other words, more than 90 percent of the self-diagnosed caffeine cravers in this small sample could not detect the presence of caffeine.
That’s why the great popularity of caffeinated soft drinks is driven not so much by subtle taste effects as by the mood-altering and physical dependence of caffeine that drives the daily self-administration.
And the unknown could be especially troublesome for the developing brains of children and adolescents. Logic dictates that when you are dependent on a drug, you are really upsetting the normal balances of neurochemistry in the brain. The fact that kids have withdrawal signs and symptoms when the caffeine is stopped is a good indication that something has been profoundly disturbed in the brain.
Exactly where that leads is anybody’s guess — which is to say there is little good research on the effects of caffeine on kids’ developing brains.
Animal studies demonstrate that phosphorus, a common ingredient in soda, can deplete bones of calcium.
And two recent human studies suggest that girls who drink more soda are more prone to broken bones. The industry denies that soda plays a role in bone weakening.
Animal studies — mostly involving rats — point to clear and consistent bone loss with the use of cola beverages. But as scientists like to point out, humans and rats are not exactly the same.
Even so, there’s been concern among the research community, public health officials and government agencies over the high phosphorus content in the US diet. Phosphorus — which occurs naturally in some foods and is used as an additive in many others — appears to weaken bones by promoting the loss of calcium. With less calcium available, the bones become more porous and prone to fracture.
The soft drink industry argues that the phosphoric acid in soda pop contributes only about 2 percent of the phosphorus in the typical US diet, with a 12-ounce can of soda pop averaging about 30 milligrams.
There’s growing concern that even a few cans of soda today can be damaging when they are consumed during the peak bone-building years of childhood and adolescence. A 1996 study published in the Journal of Nutrition by the FDA’s Office of Special Nutritionals noted that a pattern of high phosphorus/low calcium consumption, common in the American diet, is not conducive to optimizing peak bone mass in young women.
A 1994 Harvard study of bone fractures in teenage athletes found a strong association between cola beverage consumption and bone fractures in 14-year-old girls. The girls who drank cola were about five times more likely to suffer bone fractures than girls who didn’t consume soda pop.
Besides, to many researchers, the combination of rising obesity and bone weakening has the potential to synergistically undermine future health. Adolescents and kids don’t think long-term. But what happens when these soft-drinking people become young or middle-aged adults and they have osteoporosis, sedentary living and obesity?
By that time, switching to water, milk or fruit juice may be too little, too late