Soda Industry Study Touts Diet Soda


diet-sodaMost people choose artificially-sweetened soda over regular soda to avoid packing on extra pounds. But what if you already choose diet? Would it be helpful to quit that too?

Dr. Jim Hill says he gets this question all the time from patients in his weight loss program at the University of Colorado’s Anschutz Health and Wellness Center.

With funding from the American Beverage Association, Hill helped design a study that divided approximately 300 adults into two groups: One group would continue drinking diet, and the other group — referred to in the study as the “water group” — would go cold turkey. The study was published in the journal Obesity.

Both participant groups received intensive coaching on successful techniques for weight loss, including regular feedback on the meals they logged in journals.

“The results, to us, were not at all surprising,” says Hill.

While the typical participant banned from drinking diet sodas lost 9 pounds over 12 weeks, those allowed to continue drinking diet soda lost, on average, 13 pounds in the same time period. That’s a 4-pound difference.

Hill says that in his clinical experience, many people who have successfully lost significant weight “are heavy users of noncaloric sweeteners.”

But why was the diet soda group more successful? The most likely reason is that this group had the easier task.

Cutting calories and boosting exercise takes a lot of willpower. Trying to simultaneously give up something else you regularly enjoy — such as diet soda — taxes your ability to stay the course. Most psychologists agree that our willpower is a limited resource.

So while this study did not track calorie consumption, the group blocked from drinking diet sodas most likely ate (or drank) more calories over the course of the 12-week diet.

“It makes sense that it would have been harder for the water group to adhere to the overall diet than the (artificially-sweetened beverage) group,” says Hill.

He added, “The most likely explanation was that having access to drinks with sweet taste helps the (artificially-sweetened beverage) group to adhere better to the behavioral change program.”

In short, this study addresses the question of whether a regular diet soda drinker should attempt to kick his or her habit while also attempting to lose weight, not whether we should all drink more diet soda in order to lose weight.

Artificially-sweetened beverages “are not weight-loss enhancers, so it’s not anything in the compounds themselves that are promoting weight loss,” says Hill.


{ Newscenter}


  1. I would like to see a study on what the next 12 weeks showed on the scale. The water drinkers are definitely better off even though their loss may be slower. They probably kicked the sugar habit better. Drinking diet soda does not kick the sugar craving, but water does.

  2. Comment #1 From Water Drinker is equally a very excellent observation of just plain obvious logic!

  3. Far too much of the discussion about diet sodas [and other diet (so-called) “foods”] is wrongly focused on the point of weight loss, which is just a tiny sliver of the picture. The main bulk of the issue is that the two modern artificial sweeteners that are used in diet foods, Aspartame and Splenda, ARE BOTH SEVERELY HARMFUL POISONS!!

  4. (Previous comment continued)

    In 2005, scientists at the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences in Bologna, Italy, did a study of rats ingesting Aspartame. The results showed an increase of (yenem machla) tumors. (The study’s official report can be viewed at

    At the Washington School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, one of the professors of psychiatry is a John W. Olney, MD. In the late 1970’s, he did experiments with mice and Aspartame, and saw that the sweetener caused DESTRUCTION OF BRAIN CELLS. In further research, he found reports of other rat-Aspartame studies that showed very great increases in brain (yenem machla) tumors.

    He thus petitioned the FDA to delay approval of Aspartame until there could be proper clarification of this problem. While
    the FDA did grant him hearings on the issue, in 1981 though, the new FDA director ignored the problem and rushed through the approval.

    In 1996, Dr. Olney and three of his university colleagues published an essay on the Aspartame situation. They point out that ever since the new sweetener was approved and put to use in the early 1980’s there has been a sharp rise in brain (yenem machla) tumors. As this observation is, of course, only circumstantial evidence, they called for further research to determine the exact extent in humans of an Aspartame-brain tumor link.

    (See full write up at

  5. (Previous comment continued)

    Soon after Splenda was put on the market, one of the advertisements pushing it stated:


    So any person reading that would think that means that in a spoonful of Splenda powder, one half of that powder is really just regular sugar crystals, and the other half of the powder is the new low calorie sweetener thingy.


    The process that makes Splenda does begin with, yes, a sugar molecule. However, a complex chemical action is done that TEARS OFF A LARGE PART OF THE MOLECULE!! SO, ALREADY, IT IS NO LONGER SUGAR!!

    Then, in place of the removed piece, three atoms of CHLORINE are attached. Chlorine is one of the more common elements in the world; it is a poison gas that is used to make bleaches, disinfectants, insecticides, and chemical weapons. Now joined with this broken — FORMER — sugar molecule, the newly created molecule is a insidious new substance that is in the category of chemicals called “chlorocarbons.” In the family of chlorocarbons are some of the most severe insecticides, including the very famous “DDT,” that were legally banned from use.

    (See the full explanation at

  6. (Conclusion of the previous comments)

    In the period of Splenda’s development before it received its official approval, its manufacterer ran laboratory tests on it. The results were quite a list of significant items:

    Shrinking Thymus Glands
    Swelling of the Liver
    Swelling of the Kidneys
    Weight Gain of the Cecum
    Weight Loss of the Placenta
    Weight Loss of the Fetus
    Death of the Fetus (Translated,
    that is automatic abortion!)
    Loss of Red Blood Cells
    (In Diabetes Cases) Blood Damage
    that could lead to FATAL heart failure
    (This point is obviously especially
    significant, as diabetics are banned
    from sugar, they are encouraged to
    use the alternatives of these artifical

    It goes without saying though, that when a person is trying to be liked and accepted by others, he or she will be very careful to avoid telling them about the problems that he or she has. So here too, it is 1,000% understandable that the corporation that is producing Splenda — AND its friends in the FDA — are not going to openly publicize research findings that imply that there is anything wrong with their holy product. Instead, they will make sure to brag about those studies where the results will show that Splenda is “safe.”

    (See the full report at and the links there.)

Leave a Reply to Let Us Look At The Facts Cancel reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here