Certain industries have a history of using wartime "generosity" to get soldiers hooked on their products, namely alcohol and tobacco.  Those of you who have watched an "OLD SOLDIER" trying to drink their nightmares away, or smoking through their 'trache' outside the side door of a VA hospital, know exactly what I mean. It seems that we need to add yet another product to this list.

A study from last month's issue of Military Medicine tells the story via its title; Energy Drink Use in U.S. Service Members After Deployment: Associations With Mental Health Problems, Aggression, and Fatigue.  A team of four researchers from Walter Reed's Center for Military Psychiatry and Neuroscience concluded that, "energy drink use was reported by one in six soldiers and was significantly related to mental health problems, aggressive behaviors, and fatigue in a military population following a combat deployment."  As I will show with both tobacco and alcohol, it's not like targeting military personnel is anything new when it comes to marketing (or 'hooking') our sons and daughters on highly addictive products.

From WWI through Vietnam, the US military has made sure that our boys got their smokes.  And even though this practice was supposedly done away with after the Vietnam War, numerous sources show that it continued all the way into the 1990's and 2000's.  Information on this topic is abundant and comes in the form of message board threads, journal articles, studies, and an array of pieces from a wide range of magazines and books.  One of the more telling titles came from a 2014 issue of Mother Jones (Is the World’s Most Powerful Military Defenseless Against Big Tobacco?).

"War is indeed dangerous, but cigarettes kill far more soldiers and citizens than war does. It’s not even close. More than 480,000 Americans die from smoking and secondhand smoke exposure every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—more than died on the battlefields of World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam combined.  Cigarettes kill more soldiers and sailors than wars do, and cost taxpayers billions. Yet Congress keeps shooting down the Pentagon’s efforts to snuff them out."

Thanks to millions of American servicemen coming home from Europe and the South Pacific addicted to tobacco, within three years after WWII (it ended in August of '45), lung cancer was shown to be growing at a rate five times greater than that of other CANCERS.  In WWI, part of the Doughboy's ration was loose tobacco and rolling papers.  However, because of ease of use, it didn't take long for factory-rolled cigarettes to become the smokes-of-choice for US servicemen, who, by WWII were being provided with 4-packs as part of their C-rations.

Earlier this year, the Truth Initiative published a piece titled Tobacco Use in the Military, which not only provided tons of information on Big Tobacco's specific efforts to hook the US GI on their products, but revealed how ridiculously high the smoking rates continue to be in, as opposed to outside the military.  For more information, read The Cigarette Manufacturers' Efforts to Promote Tobacco to the U.S. Military from the October 2005 issue of the same journal we are discussing today (Military Medicine), the NIH's online book, Combating Tobacco Use in Military and Veteran Populations, or 'Everywhere the Soldier Will Be': Wartime Tobacco Promotion in the US Military from a ten year old issue of the American Journal of Public Health.  Which brings us to industry promotion of alcohol in the military.

Honestly, we see virtually the same phenomenon with Big Alcohol's promotion of drinking (mostly beer) as we did for tobacco ---- and it's nothing new.  The magazine, All About Beer, published a 2002 article by Alan Moen titled Beer Goes to War, which revealed that advocating beer drinking within the military has been going on for a very long time, much to the delight of brewers.

"As part of a soldier’s regular daily ration as decreed by the Continental Congress, beer fueled the flames of freedom burning within its armies. The statute, enacted on November 4, 1775, stipulated that each soldier be provided with 'I QT of Spruce Beer, or Cider/man/day.'  George Washington himself, major general of the American rebel army, was a firm believer in the importance of beer as a staple for his troops. According to historian Gregg Smith, 'among Washington’s least recognized but most valuable skills was locating his encampments within reach of a supply of beer.'"

The trend continued through the Civil War, WWI, and into WWII, where the USDA actually mandated that a whopping 15% of all US beer production go to our boys overseas (as well as 30% of our national cigarette production).  By the time Vietnam rolled around, beer was ubiquitous to military facilities, with numerous articles and message boards speaking of fire-bases supplied with stacked pallets of their most important ammunition, beer.  Industry sentiment was captured by Jake Hall, writing for a 2015 issue of War on the Rocks (A Farewell to Sobriety, Part Two: Drinking During World War II).

"Consider the lobbying hours that American distilleries must have put in with politicians, insisting that war or no, they were all still capitalists together, and that making torpedo fuel was good, but making money was essential."

Since I am not against having a few beers now and then, what's the point?  Only that American industry has proven time and time again that it will do whatever it takes to both create and keep market share, seeing our soldiers as highly valuable commodities; damn the long-term health-related consequences.  Enough, however, about tobacco and alcohol; let's take a moment and step into the world of the American military's latest addiction ---- "Energy Drinks". 

The most popular energy drinks today (Red Bull, Rockstar, Amp, and Monster) also happened to be the ones specifically mentioned in this study.  Numerous other studies, however, have likewise shown energy drinks and their ingredients (copious amounts of sugar, caffeine, etc) can lead to MIGRAINES, INSOMNIA (due to creating an artificially induced state of SYMPATHETIC DOMINANCE), ADDICTION, INSULIN RESISTANCE & T2D, HBP, and any number of others including cardiac arrest / heart failure.  The study we are looking at today specifically listed ANXIETY, DEPRESSION, and alcohol abuse (a whopping 30%), along with various forms of violent behavior and PTSD, as commonly associated with regular consumption of energy drinks. Is anyone shocked?

Earlier this year (July), the National Institute of Health issued a rather freaky warning for energy drink consumption, which provided a glimpse into just how popular these products are with the younger generation. "Energy drinks are widely promoted as products that increase energy and enhance mental alertness and physical performance. Next to multivitamins, energy drinks are the most popular dietary supplement consumed by American teens and young adults. Men between the ages of 18 and 34 years consume the most energy drinks, and almost one-third of teens between 12 and 17 years drink them regularly."  Among other facts mentioned, was the propensity to use them as alcohol mixers.

Takeaways from today's study were that seven months post-combat, over three quarters of the nearly 700 soldiers quizzed, still reported regularly consuming energy drinks, with 1 in 6 quaffing more than two a day.  What's probably not surprising is that a 2012 study (Energy Drink Consumption and its Association with Sleep Problems Among U.S. Service Members on a Combat Deployment - Afghanistan, 2010) showed that consumption was even higher for soldiers in the field, with an almost unbelievable 45% drinking these creatures daily (BTW, that study came to similar conclusions as this one).  Listen to the findings from the authors of today's study.

"In the deployed context, the appeal of energy drinks is understandable given that there is substantial restriction in sleep as well as regular circadian disruption due to night-time operations; indeed, caffeine is a recommended option to sustain alertness in this environment. During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, energy drinks were often made readily available to deployed service members at no cost.  Interestingly, energy drink use was associated with fatigue. This relationship suggests that energy drink use may potentially exacerbate, rather than alleviate, fatigue. This finding stands in contrast to the marketing of energy drinks as a way to increase energy and reduce fatigue."

I well remember the marketing campaign for the first energy drink; something called Jolt (1985) that I am not sure whether or not is still around ---- "All the sugar and twice the caffeine".  Bottom line, if you or your children are regular or even semi-regular consumers of energy drinks, SODA, or worse yet, DIET SODA, stop it already.  Numerous studies have not only shown their association to a myriad of health problems, but just as bad, for a significant number of people this stuff is as addictive as crack (HERE).

If you are looking to turn your life around, break out of the fatigue and mental fog, diminish your systemic inflammatory load, and basically start the process of taking your life back, now is the time to start preparing and planning.  I say preparing and planning because the NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION you are contemplating in less than a week, will be broken in less than two ---- unless you do two things.  Create a written plan (HERE) and get an accountability partner who will encourage you, chide you, or drop kick you into next week, whichever is most appropriate for your situation (HERE).  If you want to see my generic protocol for getting healthier, it's HERE and it's completely free.  And if you liked today's post, be sure to see that it makes the rounds on FACEBOOK --- especially if you have teenagers!

"A rise in the percent of the population who are obese coincides with an increase in the widespread use of non-caloric artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame (e.g., Diet Coke) and sucralose (e.g., Pepsi One)..."   From the June 2010 issue of the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, Gain Weight by 'Going Diet?' Artificial Sweeteners and the Neurobiology of Sugar Cravings

"You never see skinny people drinking it."  Actress Joan Collins' answer after being asked why she doesn't drink diet soda

Unless you are trumping for Big Sugar / Big Food / Big Ag like the medical community has been doing for decades (WebMD's Diet Sodas Cause Weight Gain? Not so Fast is a prime example), it's not news that SODA is bad news.  This is mostly because its massive amounts of sugar is a great way to screw up your METABOLISM / PHYSIOLOGY, as well as the fact it's incredibly acidic.  If you can believe it, DIET SODA may be worse.  It fouls up various parts of the brain, which has led a significant number of scientists to declare that even though it contains zero calories, it actually causes more weight gain than sugary soda --- the topic of today's post.

Saccharin (300 times sweeter than sugar) was invented at Johns Hopkins University back in 1879 while working on, of all things, COAL TAR DERIVATIVES.  Cyclamate came next (1939), but was pulled off the US market in 1969 because it was shown to cause CANCER.  And although there was lots of talk about doing the same thing with Saccharin in the 1970's (carcinogenic warning labels were added), it instead had the labels removed and is today readily available as Sweet'n Low.  While all of this was going on, a chemist for the drug company Searle was working on a medication for ulcers, which turned out to be a compound 200 times sweeter than sugar --- aspartame.  If you want to read the sordid story of the way Donald Rumsfeld gained aspartame's FDA approval after over a decade and a half of denials, HERE it is.

One of the questions I frequently ask patients is how much soda they drink.  Although I once had a person tell me (with others in the room nodding in confirmation) that she drank 30 cans of Diet Dr. Pepper a day, that's extreme by anyone's standard.  What's fairly common is people consuming somewhere between 1 and 2 6-packs a day.  In a society that's often defined by our addictions, science has clearly shown us that sugar is at the very least, AS ADDICTIVE AS HARD DRUGS, with many studies showing it's actually more addictive --- as great as 8x more addictive.  The truth is, if SUGAR / SODA were not addictive (even in its "diet" form) Americans would not be consuming a whopping 80 PLUS GALLONS per person, annually.  With such a large amount of non caloric beverages being consumed in the United States, we have to ask ourselves a simple question --- is this stuff doing what it's supposed to be doing?  Is it helping people lose weight?

"The second (and more complicated) theory has to do with how aspartame affects insulin production. 'Aspartame binds to tastebuds in our stomach, which send signals to the pancreas telling it to release insulin,' explains physician and biochemist Cate Shanahan, author of Deep Nutrition: Why Your Genes Need Traditional Food. 'Insulin, in turn, shuts down our fat-burning enzymes and ramps up our fat-storing enzymes.' In other words, artificial sugars trick our body into thinking we’re consuming regular sugar, causing it to go into energy-storage mode."   Ian Lecklitner's March 2017 article (What's in This Diet Coke?) for Mel Magazine

"In addition, some studies indicate sugar substitutes like aspartame, sucralose and saccharin, which are commonly found in diet drinks, can throw off your body’s natural metabolic processes. Disrupting these processes could cause your body to store fat instead of burning it, and may increase your risks for diabetes and heart disease."  October 2014 issue of the publication of MD Anderson Cancer Centers (Diet Soda and Cancer: What you Should Know)

"For example, three large studies published between 2007 and 2009 found that people who drank diet sodas regularly were more likely to develop type 2 diabetes and had between 30 and 55 percent higher risk of metabolic syndrome (a constellation of health problems that could increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and stroke) than those who didn’t. Two other studies from 2012 further bolstered these results: Researchers linked daily diet soda consumption to about a 45 percent higher risk of heart attack, stroke, and early death in one study of about 2,600 people; and about 30 percent increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke—a less common type of stroke where a ruptured blood vessel or burst aneurysm causes loss of blood flow to the brain—in the other study of 130,000 people. Past research has also found links between diet sodas and conditions such as depression or pre-term delivery. For example, one study of almost 320,000 people published in the journal PLoS One in 2014 found that those who drank four or more cans of diet soda each day were about 30 percent more likely to be diagnosed with depression than those who didn’t."  From The Mounting Evidence Against Diet Sodas by Julia Calderone in the May 24, 2017 issue of Consumer Reports

It leads to more weight gain, it's been linked to type-2 diabetes, it can cause heart problems and it can increase your risk of having a stroke by nearly 50%.  From Penn Medicine's March 2017 article, Why Diet Soda is Bad for You

Knowing what we know about sugar, it's easy to take for granted that sugary drinks like soda cause health problems (OBESITY, METABOLIC SYNDROME, DIABETES, ALZHEIMER'S, CANCER, etc).  And while one might assume that since "diet" beverages contain no calories, they cannot cause one to gain weight, this thought process is not only unfortunately incorrect, it's really incorrect.   Today I want to show you this as I take you down memory lane, providing you a timeline of studies showing that diet soda is only not doing what's been claimed of it for decades, but is doing the exact opposite --- it's causing consumers to gain weight instead.

Back in the early 1970's, Dr. Frank Speizer set up one of the biggest studies of it's kind; THE NURSE'S HEALTH STUDY.  Among other things studied were the effects of diet soda on weight gain.  After looking at almost 32,000 female diet soda drinkers over the course of eight years it was determined that as a group they gained more weight than those who did not drink diet sodas.

Two big studies hit the libraries in 1986.  First, in March, Prevention Medicine (Artificial Sweetener Use and One-Year Weight Change Among Women) showed that out of the nearly 80,000 women studied, "Users were significantly more likely than nonusers to gain weight, regardless of initial weight.  These results were not explicable by differences in food consumption patterns. The data do not support the hypothesis that long-term artificial sweetener use either helps weight loss or prevents weight gain."  Two short months later, Lancet published a study whose title told the entire story; Paradoxical Effects of an Intense Sweetener (Aspartame) on Appetite. Hint, the paradoxical effect was that even though it was being marketed as a diet aid, aspartame caused people to eat more. "The overall data indicate that aspartame, in some circumstances, has appetite-stimulating properties relative to the ingestion of water."  Stick around and you'll see the mechanism.

A 1988 study by the same author was published in the journal Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function (Effects of Aspartame on Appetite and Food Intake) which stated, "Aspartame—in addition to its role as an agent which disengages sweet taste and energy value—may influence eating via hormonal or neurochemical mechanisms."  And even though it does not have anything to do with weight gain per se, be aware that even though aspartame had been linked to brain tumors for years, scientists at St. Louis' Washington University raised a scary question via the title of the November 1996 issue of the Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology (Increasing Brain Tumor Rates: Is There a Link to Aspartame?).  "Compared to other environmental factors putatively linked to brain tumors, the artificial sweetener aspartame is a promising candidate to explain the recent increase in incidence and degree of malignancy of brain tumors."

As you can see, even though there were not an abundance of studies on this topic, experts were already saying over 3 decades ago that diet sodas were not a valid weight loss tool.  Follow along as the research picks up steam in the following decade.

Although there are innumerable studies during the first portion of the new millennium, the studies on diet soda don't start ratcheting up until the 2007 issue of Circulation (the official journal of the American Heart Association).  In yet another installment of the famed Framingham Heart Study, Boston University's School of Medicine compared outcomes of those who drink diet sodas as compared to those who drank regular sodas.  The news release from our government (Framingham Observational Study Notes Greater Incidence of Metabolic Syndrome Among Adults Consuming Soft Drinks) revealed that "Middle-aged adults who drank more than one soft drink daily, either diet or regular, have a more than 40 percent greater rate of either having or developing metabolic syndrome, a cluster of conditions that increase the risk for heart disease."  In other words, there was no difference between drinking diet or regular --- the authors could not tell the difference.  But how bad was it really?  Here is what BU's website said.

"This study showed that association not only included drinking regular calorie-laden soft drinks, but artificially sweetened diet sodas as well...  individuals consuming one or more soft drinks a day had a 48 percent increased prevalence of the metabolic syndrome compared to those consuming less than one soft drink daily.  Consumption of one or more soft drinks a day was associated with a 44 percent higher risk of developing new-onset metabolic syndrome during a follow-up period of four years.  The researchers also observed that compared to participants who drank less than one soft drink daily, those who drank one or more soft drinks a day had a 31% greater risk of developing new-onset obesity; 30% increased risk of developing increased waist circumference; 25% increased risk of developing high blood triglycerides or high fasting blood glucose; and a 32% higher risk of having low HDL levels."

Not sure what METABOLIC SYNDROME is?  Click the link and realize that all of its symptoms cluster around obesity (BELLY FAT, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, PRE-DIABETES, etc).  A year later in the  journal Obesity (Fueling the Obesity Epidemic? Artificially Sweetened Beverage Use and Long-Term Weight Gain), Dr. Sharon Fowler's team did something similar by looking at the majority of the original 5,000 plus participants of the famed San Antonio Heart Study (1979-1988), determining that not only were artificially sweetened beverages associated with obesity, they essentially doubled your risk.  Furthermore, the more diet soda you drank, the greater your odds of becoming obese (it was "dose-dependent").  The authors concluded that "artificial sweetener use might be fueling--rather than fighting--our escalating obesity epidemic."  For the record, this increase in weight came without an increased intake in food.

In April of 2008, the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Direct and Indirect Cellular Effects of Aspartame on the Brain) described the metabolic mechanism whereby aspartame is converted into neurologically toxic substances (EXCITOTOXINS, MSG, and {gulp} formaldehyde aka embalming fluid).  "Aspartame is composed of phenylalanine (50%), aspartic acid (40%) and methanol (10%). Phenylalanine plays an important role in neurotransmitter regulation, whereas aspartic acid is also thought to play a role as an excitatory neurotransmitter in the central nervous system. Glutamate, asparagines and glutamine are formed from their precursor, aspartic acid. Methanol [rubbing alcohol], which forms 10% of the broken down product, is converted in the body to formate, which can either be excreted or can give rise to formaldehyde, diketopiperazine (a carcinogen) and a number of other highly toxic derivatives.... [which can cause] changes in regional brain concentrations of norepinephrine, epinephrine and dopamine. We propose that excessive aspartame ingestion might be involved in the pathogenesis of certain mental disorders and also in compromised learning and emotional functioning."  The thing to remember here is how big a part brain chemicals play in both hunger and satiety (the feeling of fullness).

Just a couple months prior, the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health (Splenda Alters Gut Microflora and Increases Intestinal P-Glycoprotein and Cytochrome P-450 in Male Rats) showed a mechanism whereby diet soda is screwing up metabolism and causing weight gain --- destruction of THE MICROBIOME.  In similar fashion to ANTIBIOTICS, it seems that diet soda is wreaking havoc on the microbiome (if you were not aware of the relationship between microbiome and obesity, HERE is one link of many).  Without going into detail here, the authors concluded that "Evidence indicates that a 12-wk administration of Splenda exerted numerous adverse effects..."  There have actually been a number of similar studies that I do not have time to cover today.

Shortly after, the January 2009 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Nonnutritive Sweetener Consumption in Humans: Effects on Appetite and Food Intake and their Putative Mechanisms) revealed that, "A critical review of the literature suggests that the addition of nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS) to non-energy-yielding [zero calorie diet-based] products may heighten appetite.... The addition of NNS to diets poses no benefit for weight loss or reduced weight gain...."  In April, the MESA study (Diet Soda Intake and Risk of Incident Metabolic Syndrome and Type 2 Diabetes in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) from the journal, Diabetes Care, showed exactly what we've been seeing.  After following nearly 7,000 subjects from 2002 to 2007, researchers from numerous institutions including UT and Johns Hopkins, concluded that, "Daily consumption of diet soda was associated with a 36% greater relative risk of incident metabolic syndrome and a 67% greater relative risk of incident type 2 diabetes compared with nonconsumption.  Although these observational data cannot establish causality, consumption of diet soda at least daily was associated with significantly greater risks of select incident metabolic syndrome components and type 2 diabetes."  Why are you still drinking diet soda?

By the beginning of the next decade, the heat was being turned up yet again on diet soda as a weight loss tool. Case in point was a study from the December issue of Acta Physiologica Hungarica, which concluded (Effects of Artificial Sweeteners on Body Weight, Food and Drink Intake) "Artificial sweeteners are widely used all over the world. Mice were given oral doses of water solutions of table top artificial sweeteners (saccharin, cyclamate, acesulfame-K based, and aspartame) the amount of maximum Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) ad libitum [not forced, but as much as they cared to consume]. The controls received only tap water with the same drinking conditions as the treated groups. The mice were fed chow ad libitum.  Consumption of sweeteners resulted in significantly increased body weight; however, the food intake did not change. These results question the effect of non-caloric artificial sweeteners on weight-maintenance or body weight decrease."  Are you starting to see a pattern here?

And for those parents providing this crap to their children, this study's for you.  The August 2010 issue of the International Journal of Pediatric Obesity (Artificial Sweeteners: A Systematic Review of Metabolic Effects in Youth) provided these "CHERRY-PICKED" tidbits (I cherry pick everything for the sake of time and space).  Bear in mind that these authors analyzed the results of eighteen studies for this study.  Also bear in mind that a "positive correlation" means that those consuming the most diet soda are those who are gaining the most weight.

"Epidemiological data have demonstrated an association between artificial sweetener use and weight gain.  Since their FDA approval, artificial sweeteners and their benefits on metabolic health have been questioned. An association between artificial sweetener intake and weight gain was first observed in epidemiological studies with adults. Several largescale studies have shown a positive association between artificial sweetener use and increases in weight and/or BMI.  New data from both humans and animal models have provided convincing evidence that artificial sweeteners play an active role in the gastrointestinal tract, thus providing a mechanistic explanation for observed metabolic effects.  Currently, the FDA has approved five artificial sweeteners for consumption: acesulfame-K, aspartame, neotame, saccharin, and sucralose.  The majority of pediatric epidemiologic studies have found a positive correlation between weight gain and artificially-sweetened beverage intake.  Several cross-sectional studies in children have added to the association between artificially-sweetened beverage use and adverse health effects.  To date, only one observational study has shown an inverse association between artificial sweetener use and weight gain."

As you will quickly notice, scientific studies linking diet soda (most particularly aspartame since it is the most common non-caloric sweetener) to obesity and weight gain were by this time starting to pick up some serious steam. In November of 2011, BMC Medicine published A Systematic Review on the Effect of Sweeteners on Glycemic Response and Clinically Relevant Outcomes, which concluded...

"In theory, substituting non-caloric and lower caloric sweeteners for simple sugars should reduce energy intake and thereby the risk of obesity and its consequences. However, there are a number of reasons why increasing use of non-caloric and lower caloric sweeteners might not lead to the expected improvements in energy regulation.  Use of hypocaloric sweeteners might not induce weight loss even in the short term.  Although our data suggest that non-caloric sweeteners may lead to clinically relevant weight loss through reduced energy consumption, this conclusion was driven by a single trial with a total of 41 participants. Unlike caloric sweeteners, non-caloric sweeteners are not known to suppress appetite, and therefore would not reduce the motivation to eat. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the psychobiological signals with non-caloric sweeteners may directly influence physiological regulatory mechanisms and thus further reduce their potential for reducing net energy intake."

Two things stick out here.  Firstly, it's not taking into account the absurd incidence of SUGAR / CARB / SWEET ADDICTION.  Secondly, it provides a great example of ideas that work 180 degrees differently in real life than they do in theory (SOCIALISM / COMMUNISM is another great example).  Which brings us to 2012.  In the May issue of Physiology & Behavior (Altered Processing of Sweet Taste in the Brain of Diet Soda Drinkers) researchers from San Diego State University concluded that this "altering" may be due to the way that zero-calorie chemical sweeteners foul certain parts of the brain, including those portions related to sweetness and satiety.  After looking at functional MRI's of the brains of individuals shortly after consuming diet soda.  "These findings suggest that there are alterations in reward processing of sweet taste in individuals who regularly consume diet soda, and this is associated with the degree of consumption.... and may provide some insight into the link between diet soda consumption and obesity."  In other words, people can become addicted to the sweet in diet drinks just like they become addicted to real sugar or HFCS.

In October the CDC published a paper (Consumption of Diet Drinks in the United States, 2009‒2010) that asked the question, "What percentage of the U.S. population consumed diet drinks?" and then turned around and answered it themselves.  "About 20% of the U.S. population aged 2 years and over consumed diet drinks on a given day during 2009‒2010. The percentage consuming diet drinks was similar for females and males at all ages except among adolescents aged 12‒19. The percentage consuming diet drinks increased with age for both males and females."  By the way, as you may have expected, females were the larger consumer of diet beverages.  Later that month the journal Appetite published a study titled Saccharin and Aspartame, Compared with Sucrose, Induce Greater weight Gain in Adult Wistar Rats, at Similar Total Caloric Intake Levels.  Brace yourself for their shocking conclusions.  "Addition of either saccharin or aspartame to yogurt resulted in increased weight gain compared to addition of sucrose... Greater weight gain was promoted by the use of saccharin or aspartame, compared with sucrose [table sugar], and this weight gain was unrelated to caloric intake."  Did you catch that?  Once again we see that the weight gain induced by diet sodas is directly related to the chemical sweeteners and not increased numbers of CALORIES CONSUMED. 

The final study of 2012 I want to discuss came from the December issue of the journal PLoS One (Crohn's Disease-Associated Adherent-Invasive Escherichia coli Adhesion Is Enhanced by Exposure to the Ubiquitous Dietary Polysaccharide Maltodextrin).  Maltodextrin is a highly processed GRAIN-BASED thickener, filler and / or preservative for highly processed foods.  A simple Google search will tell you that maltodextrin is some nasty, high glycemic stuff, that is frequently associated with INSULIN RESISTANCE.  Just realize that in the case of E. Coli (AIEC), the DYSBIOSIS (bacterial overgrowth) is typically found in the form of a BIOFILM (in this case LF82).  Not surprising considering that while drugs, chemicals, or antibiotics typically cause dysbiosis, it's simple carbohydrates and sugar that feed it (HERE).

"Crohn's disease (CD) is associated with intestinal dysbiosis evidenced by an altered microbiome forming thick biofilms on the epithelium.  In the case of CD, pathogenic dysbiosis [is] characterized by an increase in total numbers of bacteria, a reduced diversity of bacterial species, and alterations in the spatial organization of the microbiome.   Adherent-invasive E. coli (AIEC) strains are frequently isolated from ileal lesions of CD patients indicating a potential role for these strains in disease pathogenesis.  MDX is included as a bulking agent in the no-calorie sweeteners Equal® (aspartame) and Splenda® (sucralose). Using these commercial sources of MDX, the growth and biofilm formation of LF82 was assessed. LF82 grew robustly in media supplemented with Equal® or Splenda® and specific biofilm formation was strikingly enhanced in medium containing Equal® or Splenda® relative to glucose-supplemented medium. The effect of replacing MDX with glucose as a filler component for aspartame or sucralose was also tested in specific biofilm formation assays. No increases in biofilm formation were observed in glucose-containing medium supplemented with aspartame or sucralose. Likewise, addition of the artificial sweeteners to MDX-containing medium did not further increase biofilm formation over the levels observed in medium supplemented only with MDX. These findings indicate that MDX found in commercial sources can stimulate LF82 biofilm formation.  MDX metabolism may promote colonization of multiple CD-associated bacteria."

Can it get any scarier?  I guess it depends on how much chemical sweetener (overt or occult) you or your loved ones are consuming.  2013 saw the publication of Susan Swither's study (Artificial Sweeteners Produce the Counterintuitive Effect of Inducing Metabolic Derangements) in the journal Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism.  Similar to previous studies, Dr. Swithers' team concluded, "The negative impact of consuming sugar-sweetened beverages on weight and other health outcomes has been increasingly recognized; therefore, many people have turned to high-intensity sweeteners like aspartame, sucralose, and saccharin as a way to reduce the risk of these consequences. However, accumulating evidence suggests that frequent consumers of these sugar substitutes may also be at increased risk of excessive weight gain, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease."  The Purdue Today (Prof: Diet Drinks Are Not the Sweet Solution to Fight Obesity, Health Problems) said of her study, "Research also shows that non-caloric or reduced-calorie food and beverages interfere with a body's learned responses. The assumption is that fewer calories means less weight gain. Research, including studies from Swithers and colleagues, shows that frequent consumption of high-intensity sweeteners may have the opposite effect by confusing the body's natural ability to manage calories based on tasting something sweet."  As we have already seen, the resulting "metabolic derangements" are nothing less than devastating for both weight and overall health.

2014 saw the landslide continue with several studies, the first (and possibly most damning) found in October's copy of Nature (Artificial Sweeteners Induce Glucose Intolerance by Altering the Gut Microbiota).  Pay close attention to the conclusions of this team of 17 Israeli researchers.  "Non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) are among the most widely used food additives worldwide. Here we demonstrate that consumption of commonly used NAS formulations drives the development of glucose intolerance through induction of compositional and functional alterations to the intestinal microbiota. These NAS-mediated deleterious metabolic effects are abrogated by antibiotic treatment, and are fully transferrable to germ-free mice upon faecal transplantation of microbiota configurations from NAS-consuming mice."  What does this mean in English?

It means that even though the single biggest cause of dysbiosis is antibiotics (HERE), in this study antibiotics were able to resolve soda-driven dysbiosis (after all, what is dysbiosis if not an infection?).  Furthermore, we can tell that the dysbiosis was driving the obesity (and not the other way around) because the authors took diet soda-induced dysbiotic feces from obese mice, transplant it into thin (germ free) mice, and made them fat (FMT).  "Collectively, our results link NAS consumption, dysbiosis and metabolic abnormalities, thereby calling for a reassessment of massive NAS usage."  Just so you know, the soda / processed food industry crucified Dr. Swithers for her findings --- not as severe as HERE, but not so much different nonetheless.

Several months prior, the European Journal of Nutrition once again compared the side effects of drinking diet soda to the side effects of drinking regular soda with a study titled Sugar-Sweetened Beverage and Diet Soda Consumption and the 7-Year Risk for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Middle-Aged Japanese Men).  The team of 13 researchers from Kanazawa Medical University concluded that "Consumption of diet soda was significantly associated with an increased risk for diabetes in Japanese men. Diet soda is not always effective at preventing type 2 diabetes even though it is a zero-calorie drink."  In March of 2014, the American Journal of Public Health (Diet-Beverage Consumption and Caloric Intake Among US Adults, Overall and by Body Weight) concluded that "Overweight and obese adults drink more diet beverages than healthy-weight adults and consume significantly more solid-food calories and a comparable total calories than overweight and obese adults who drink sugar-sweetened beverages."  In other words, heavy people who drink diet soda are consuming more diet soda than heavy people who drink regular soda.  They are also eating more, although several studies have already shown us that the weight gain from diet soda is irrespective of caloric intake --- a bad combination.

2014 also saw the publication of a couple of intriguing studies on the aspartame-affected brain; Biochemical Responses and Mitochondrial Mediated Activation of Apoptosis on Long-Term Effect of Aspartame in Rat Brain (from Redox Biology) and Neurobehavioral Effects of Aspartame Consumption (from Research & Health in Nursing).  Although these studies had significant amounts of freaky findings, one sentence should make the hair on the back of your neck stand on end.  "It is clear that long term aspartame exposure could alter the brain antioxidant status, and can induce apoptotic changes in the brain."  In other words, aspartame fouled up GLUTATHIONE and similar antioxidant pathways (glutathione is the body's most powerful antioxidant), MITOCHONDRIAL ACTIVITY, as well as bringing about premature apoptosis --- pre-programmed cellular death.

If there is one thing we know for sure it's that ABDOMINAL OBESITY is associated with about a jillion poor health factors and outcomes.  UT's Sharon Fowler was back for the attack in 2015 with a study (Diet Soda Intake Is Associated with Long-Term Increases in Waist Circumference in a Biethnic Cohort of Older Adults: The San Antonio Longitudinal Study of Aging) published in Clinical Investigations.  The conclusions were rather simple and straightforward.  "In a striking dose-response relationship, increasing diet soda intake was associated with escalating abdominal obesity, a potential pathway for cardiometabolic risk..."  Once again, the more of this crap you put in your body, the fatter you are likely to be --- especially belly fat; the most dangerous kind of obesity.

April of 2015 saw the publication of Diet Drink Consumption and the Risk of Cardiovascular Events: A Report from the Women’s Health Initiative in the Journal of General Internal Medicine by a group of ten physicians and researchers from institutions all over the Midwest and South.  They followed 60,000 women (average age 63) for an average of about five years, concluding that "After controlling for other cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, women who consumed more than 2 drinks/day had a higher adjusted risk of CVD events, CVD mortality and overall mortality compared to the reference group.  This analysis demonstrates an association between high diet drink intake and CVD outcomes and mortality in post-menopausal women."  There was more to come.

In July, the British Medical Journal (Consumption of Sugar Sweetened Beverages, Artificially Sweetened Beverages, and Fruit Juice and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes....), while saying that diet soda studies contained "BIAS," also revealed that "Habitual consumption of sugar sweetened beverages was associated with a greater incidence of type 2 diabetes, independently of adiposity.  Artificially sweetened beverages and fruit juice also showd positive associations with incidence of type 2 diabetes. Both artificially sweetened beverages and fruit juice were unlikely to be healthy alternatives to sugar sweetened beverages for the prevention of type 2 diabetes. Under assumption of causality, consumption of sugar sweetened beverages over years may be related to a substantial number of cases of new onset diabetes."  Bias or not, this should be getting downright scary for diet soda drinkers.

Two years ago in June, Purdue's Susan Swithers published yet another study on the subject; Not-So-Healthy Sugar Substitutes in Current Opinion Behavioral Science.  As you might already suspect, her findings were not good for the beverage industry.  After essentially saying that all non-water beverages were problematic, she concluded with some factoids.  "Artificially-sweetened beverages are linked to increased risk for negative health outcomes in clinical cohorts. Little scientific evidence supports a role for diet soft drinks in reducing risk of overweight or obesity.  Multiple biologically plausible mechanisms have been supported by experimental models in pre-clinical studies.  Reduced intake of beverages sweetened with sugar or sugar-substitutes may improve public health outcomes."  That same month, Current Diabetes Reports (What Does Diabetes "Taste" Like?) revealed this about type 1 and 2 taste receptors.

"The T1R2/T1R3 sweet taste receptor is expressed in taste buds on the tongue, where it allows the detection of energy-rich carbohydrates of food. This single receptor responds to all compounds perceived as sweet by humans, including natural sugars and natural and artificial sweeteners. Importantly, the T1R2/T1R3 sweet taste receptor is also expressed in extra-oral tissues, including the stomach, pancreas, gut, liver, and brain. Although its physiological role remains to be established in numerous organs, T1R2/T1R3 is suspected to be involved in the regulation of metabolic processes, such as sugar sensing, glucose homeostasis, and satiety hormone release."

What does this mean?  Only that even though they have no calories whatsoever, diet drinks containing artificial chemical sweeteners act like sugar, having the capability of hijacking various metabolic pathways, as well as one's ability to feel full (satiety).  While these scientists were excited about their discovery, it was openly evident that they were most excited about the money they could make if they found a "therapeutic target" for diabetes (i.e. a metabolite that a drug could attack). 

In August, the journal PLoS One published a study called Effects of the Non-Nutritive Sweeteners on Glucose Metabolism and Appetite Regulating Hormones: Systematic Review of Observational Prospective Studies and Clinical Trials.  Interestingly enough, after reviewing most of the same studies I've reviewed today, the authors of this study concluded that the "available evidence regarding the association between non-nutritive sweetener (NNS) consumption and metabolic diseases as well as the effects of NNS on glucose metabolism and appetite regulating hormones" was a wash.  Why?  They said that "adiposity" was the "common identified confounding factor".  This simply means that even though there is a boatload of evidence to the affirmative, the fact that 80% of our population is either obese, overweight, or MONW, left the authors unsure of whether to blame diet beverages. 

Interestingly enough, the very next month a dozen researcher from all over Europe published a study in the International Journal of Obesity (Does Low-Energy Sweetener Consumption Affect Energy Intake and Body Weight? A Systematic Review, Including Meta-Analyses, of the Evidence from Human and Animal Studies) coming to completely different conclusions than almost everyone before them had, even though they were looking at the same data (this was a meta-analysis, meaning they crunched everyone else's studies in order to make sense of all of it as a whole unit).  The authors of this behemoth (205 sources in the biblography) stated....

"We found a considerable weight of evidence in favour of consumption of low energy sweeteners in place of sugar as helpful in reducing relative energy expenditure and body weight, with no evidence from the many acute and sustained intervention studies in humans that low energy sweeteners increase energy expenditure. Importantly, the effects of [artificially]-sweetened beverages on body weight also appear neutral relative to water, or even beneficial in some contexts."

I must admit (I know you'll be shocked at this) that I myself have some bias in this discussion.  And while bias was brought up by these authors yet again (they accused the anti-artificial sweetener scientists of bias), hang tight while I pull the rabbit out of the hat for you.  When you see a study that goes against all other studies, producing conclusions that don't match anything you've seen thus far (even going as far to say that diet soda is in some cases superior to water), rest assured that the smell of filthy lucre is in the air. 

After seeing "ILSI Europe" mentioned (thanked) eight separate times in the 'Acknowledgements' section at the end of the paper, I knew someone was pulling an "ARNOLD MONTO".   I did a quick Google search and came up with a fascinating 34 page PDF titled A Spoonful of Sugar: How the Sugar Industry Fights Sugar Regulation in the European Union.  This must-read expose deals extensively with the organizations that funded the study above --- the chief one being (surprise surprise surprise) the International Life Science Institute (ILSI Europe).  Besides talking about ANCEL KEYS, JOHN YURDKIN, and the numerous studies that for at least sixty years have were being secretly funded by Big Sugar to "prove" that dietary fat and not dietary sugar was the cause of all the health problems we have thus far discussed today (HERE & HERE), we learn the truth about ILSI Europe's bought-and-paid for research.  ILSI Europe is....

"The European wing of a powerful industry-backed group originally founded by a veteran Coca-Cola executive with the help of Pepsi and other food industry players in 1978. It funds industry-friendly research and specializes in lobbying member states, European, and international agencies such as EFSA and the WHO. ILSI members span food as well as chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotech firms. Food industry members include Coca Cola, Pepsi, Nestlé, Red Bull, McDonald’s.... and many other large food corporations, including Südzucker/BENEO Group, the largest sugar producer in Germany.  Lobby spend: ILSI global income in 2014 is listed as €22 million [about 27million US]."

There was much more, but I simply don't have time to cover it all.  This, my friends, is what happens way too often in the field of EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE. Unfortunately for industry, a single study by a group of people who are obviously biased has little effect on the bigger picture.  A study from the April 2016 issue of Nutrition and Metabolism (Hormonal Responses to Non-Nutritive Sweeteners in Water and Diet Soda) proved this by revealing that diet soda jacks insulin levels (can anyone say INSULIN RESISTANCE?). "Diet sodas... augmented GLP-1 (Glucagon-Like Peptide-1) responses to oral glucose. Our findings emphasize the need to test metabolic effects of non-nutritive sweeteners after chronic consumption"  Did 2017 get any better for industry?  I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

The onslaught continued with January's issue of PLoS One (Artificially Sweetened Beverages and the Response to the Global Obesity Crisis).  The gist of the paper was; yes, there is a global obesity crisis.  No, diet soda is not the solution.  The WHO (NO, NOT THE BAND) recently revised their guidelines on sugar intake, calling for nations to regulate sugar-sweetened beverages because industry has cranked  up their promotion of artificially sweetened beverages as a healthy alternative. "The absence of consistent evidence to support the role of ASBs in preventing weight gain and the lack of studies on other long-term effects on health strengthen the position that ASBs should not be promoted as part of a healthy diet."  In February, Redox Biology carried a study very similar to one we discussed earlier, Chronic Aspartame Intake Causes Changes in the Trans-Sulphuration Pathway, Glutathione Depletion and Liver Damage in Mice.  For the record, in this study "chronic" meant 90 days.  There were a lot of technical findings in this study, but suffice it to say that aspartame screwed up metabolism in at least a dozen ways.

Although it's not exactly soda, the February issue of Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism (Chronic Consumption of Artificial Sweetener in Packets or Tablets and Type 2 Diabetes Risk: Evidence from the E3N-European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition Study) looked at over 60,000 women, determining that those who used packets of artificial sweeteners had greater "type 2 diabetes risk, independently of major risk factors.  A precautionary principle should be applied to the promotion of these products that are still largely recommended as healthy sugar substitutes."  Then in April, Stroke published a study titled Sugar- and Artificially Sweetened Beverages and the Risks of Incident Stroke and Dementia that concluded "After adjustments for age, sex, education (for analysis of dementia), caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease dementia."  This is not shocking considering what we've see thus far, as well as the fact that Alzheimer's is increasingly being referred to as TYPE III DIABETES within the scientific medical community.

In June, PLoS One was back with a study by a team from the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill) and University of Georgia (Athens).  It's become increasingly clear that diet soda adversely affects GUT HEALTH.  This study (The Artificial Sweetener Acesulfame Potassium (K) Affects the Gut Microbiome and Body Weight Gain in CD-1 Mice) showed yet again that diet soda is messing up one's microbiome.  "The observed body weight gain, shifts in the gut bacterial community composition, enrichment of functional bacterial genes related to energy metabolism, and fecal metabolomic changes were highly gender-specific, with differential effects observed for males and females. In particular, ace-K increased body weight gain of male but not female mice."  Then in July, 14 researchers from institutions around the globe teamed up for a massive meta-analysis (Nonnutritive Sweeteners and Cardiometabolic Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Prospective Cohort Studies) in CMAJ-JACM that took the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics to task for their ridiculous position.  After looking at 37 studies containing over 400,000 subjects...

"The position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is that nonnutritive sweeteners can help limit energy intake as a strategy to manage weight or blood glucose.  In the cohort studies, consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners was associated with increases in weight and waist circumference, and higher incidence of obesity, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular events.  Evidence from RCTs does not clearly support the intended benefits of nonnutritive sweeteners for weight management, and observational data suggest that routine intake of nonnutritive sweeteners may be associated with increased BMI and cardiometabolic risk."

Another one of those freaky diet soda / pregnancy studies was published in the October issue of the International Journal of Epidemiology (Maternal Consumption of Artificially Sweetened Beverages During Pregnancy, and Offspring Growth Through 7 Years of Age...).  "Our findings illustrated positive associations between intrauterine exposure to artificially-sweetened beverages and birth size and risk of overweight/obesity at 7 years."  In other words, mom consumes diet soda while pregnant, and increases her odds of having an obese second grader.  The same month, Obesity Research and Clinical Practice (Carbon Dioxide in Carbonated Beverages Induces Ghrelin Release and Increased Food Consumption in Male Rats: Implications on the Onset of Obesity) showed that the CO2 "fizz" in soda fouls up ghrelin --- the hormone that both regulates metabolism and tells you that you are hungry.  This means that carbonated drinks tell you that you are hungry even when you are not. And as you'll see below, this research has already crossed over to humans.

"Here, we show that rats consuming gaseous beverages over a period of around 1 year gain weight at a faster rate than controls on regular degassed carbonated beverage or tap water. This is due to elevated levels of the hunger hormone ghrelin and thus greater food intake in rats drinking carbonated drinks compared to control rats. Moreover, an increase in liver lipid accumulation of rats treated with gaseous drinks is shown opposed to control rats treated with degassed beverage or tap water. In a parallel study, the levels of ghrelin hormone were increased in 20 healthy human males upon drinking carbonated beverages compared to controls.  These results implicate a major role for carbon dioxide gas in soft drinks in inducing weight gain and the onset of obesity via ghrelin release and stimulation of the hunger response in male mammals."

One of the things I've repeatedly shown my readers is just how potent / strong stomach acid not only should be, but must be (HERE).  I've also shown you that there is typically an inverse relationship between the acidity / alkalinity of the stomach and the acidity / alkalinity of the body (HERE).  In other words, the stomach should be highly acidic, while most of the rest of the body is slightly alkaline.  Last January's issue of Applied Physiology, Nutrition & Metabolism (Inhibition of the Gut Enzyme Intestinal Alkaline Phosphatase May Explain how Aspartame Promotes Glucose Intolerance and Obesity in Mice) helped show why one's body's acid / base balance is such a big deal as far as one's weight is concerned.  Last February's Mediators of Inflammation (The Role of Intestinal Alkaline Phosphatase in Inflammatory Disorders of Gastrointestinal Tract) said this of Alkaline Phosphatase.....

"Over the past few years, the role of intestinal alkaline phosphatase (IAP) as a crucial mucosal defence factor essential for maintaining gut homeostasis has been established. IAP is an important apical brush border enzyme expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract and secreted both into the intestinal lumen and into the bloodstream. IAP exerts its effects through dephosphorylation of proinflammatory molecules including lipopolysaccharide (LPS), flagellin, and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) released from cells during stressful events. Diminished activity of IAP could increase the risk of disease through changes in the microbiome, intestinal inflammation, and intestinal permeability."

Mess with alkaline phosphotase and you'll likely end up with a LEAKY GUT (intestinal permeability), INFLAMMATION, and the "changes in the microbiome" scientists refer to as DYSBIOSIS.  Oh, and lets not forget lipopolysaccharides (HERE --- aka endotoxins).  The mice that were given aspartame in their drinking water showed that "IAP activity was reduced by 50% compared with controls."  And not too surprising, the aspartame group gained significantly more weight than the water group did.  Finally (whew!), we make it to 2018, where researchers from the Medical University of Wisconsin and Marquette's Medical School published a study in Experimental Biology called The Influence of Sugar and Artificial Sweeteners on Vascular Health during the Onset and Progression of Diabetes.  The authors concluded..... (I left out the crazy technical stuff).

"As diabetes and obesity become a rising worldwide heath concern there has been an increased awareness of environmental factors, such as diet, that are contributing to the problem. The negative implications of consuming high amounts of dietary sugar on overall health have long been linked to diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and other systemic health problems.  However, it was not until recently that the negative impact of consuming non-caloric artificial sweeteners in the place of sugar had been increasingly recognized as a potential contributor to the dramatic increase in diabetes and obesity, along with the associated complications. Overall, results of this study suggests that exposure to high glucose and artificial sweetener administration lead to unique mechanisms of vascular impairment and homeostatic alterations that may be important during the onset and progression of diabetes and obesity."

Do you know what "vascular impairment" is folks?  It means that your blood vessels are screwed up and weakened.  Impair your vascular system and an increasingly likely consequence is having a stroke.  My suggestion is that you do what it takes so that you don't have your life forever altered by a stroke.  And for Pete's sake, give up the diet sodas and start drinking WATER.

If you wish to read about these lawsuits from an industry point of view, Elaine Watson's article on Food Navigator (Does Diet Soda Promote Weight Gain? Debate Rages in the Courts as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Challenge 'Outlandish' Lawsuits) is a great place to start.  Bottom line; plaintiffs have been arguing that the term diet is misleading because it implies people could actually lose weight by drinking sodas laced with chemical sweeteners.  Industry has fought back saying that the word "diet" in beverage names (Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, Diet Dew, Diet Crapola, etc) merely indicates a lower calorie (or no calorie) offering. 

As far as the "correlation is not causation" argument, while this is certainly true, the preponderance of the evidence is not only overwhelming, but continues to mount.  However, there is too much money at stake for Big Soda to stop selling gullible people on the so-called weight loss benefits of "diet" products.  Even though the second of these lawsuits was dismissed just last week (S.D.N.Y Dismisses Complaint Alleging "Diet" Soda Did Not Assist In Weight Loss), best guess is that the evidence will be there in another two or three years.  Just remember that if you are going to take on the soda industry, you had better have deep pockets because I promise you that theirs are deeper!

If you are looking to break free of your food addictions and get healthier in the process (and maybe even lose weight while you are at it), I created a post that will help the majority of you (that would be over 50% of you) do just that.  Take a look at it (HERE), and then show us some love on FACEBOOK if you like what you are seeing.  Honestly, it's one of the simplest ways to reach the people you love and care about most with pertinent health-related information.

As far as extreme or norm – certainly when it comes to obesity and nutrition, there’s a great deal of food industry funding research, conferences, travel, etc... Husten has reported that the president of the Institute of Medicine, cardiologist Victor Dzau, was a member of the Pepsico board of directors. Last year he wrote on his website, 'Coke also pays a lot of money to the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute to put a red dress logo on the Diet Coke label, while the American Heart Association has struck deals with, among others, Cheetos and Subway. I am sure that these represent just the tip of a very large iceberg.'  From Kathlyn Stones August 2015 article for Health News Review, Behind the Scenes of the Time' Takedown of a Coke-Funded 'Front Group'

There's a concept known as 'Energy Balance' that's been floating around the weight loss world for decades.  It says that if you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight.  Likewise, to lose weight you must burn more calories than you consume. The Energy Balance theory has not only fueled scads of articles in the magazines you must pass when checking out at the grocery store (Shocking Truth: Jog Ten Miles to Burn Off Just One Brownie), it's still being promoted by too many doctors (HERE).  Considering it's now April of 2018, way too many doctors.  What's even worse, however, is that it's being promoted by some of those who really should know better --- prominent scientists and professors.  Enter Steven Blair.

Dr. Blair left his professorship at the University of South Carolina's Departments of Exercise Science, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, where he not only received numerous accolades and awards, but was said to have published over 700 papers and book chapters (not as many as HUGH but a lot nonetheless).  His area of expertise is the relationship between one's level of physical fitness / body composition (lean body mass -vs- bodyfat) and chronic disease (HEART DISEASE, OBESITY, DIABETES, etc, etc, etc). His most famous lecture / article is called "Physical Inactivity: The Biggest Public Health Problem of the 21st Century".  While too little exercise is certainly a huge problem as far as Western health is concerned, is it really the biggest? 

To answer this question, we need to go back to a couple of posts I wrote on calories.  Let me go on record to say that calories have little meaning as far as your weight is concerned.  In fact, I consider counting calories rather a waste of time.  Why?  Because it's not the CALORIES themselves that cause people to gain weight, but instead it's the effect said calories have on the endocrine system (particularly the metabolic pathways that deal with hormones such as insulin, glucagon, ghrelin, leptin, etc --- HERE). 

For example, put your body in KETOSIS and you can consume more calories than you ever dreamed possible, while shedding pounds like a junkyard dog sheds fleas (HERE).  On the other hand, subsisting on 1,000 calories a day of the wrong stuff (heavily processed carbs, sugar, and CHEMICALS) frequently contributes to ramped up INSULIN RESISTANCE and METABOLIC SYNDROME --- the precursors to TYPE II DIABETES.  In other words, promoting "Energy Balance" as a valid method of weight loss in this day and age is not only ridiculous, it's living 60 years in the past. 

Speaking of 60 years in the past; I've shown you on two different occasions how the sugar industry paid Ivy League researchers to "prove" that our nation's burgeoning health problems were related not to eating sugar but instead to increased consumption of dietary fat (HERE and HERE) --- and then got it published in the most prestigious journals of the day.  Taking a page out of an old playbook; in 2014 Coca Cola created something known as the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN), with Blair and two others leading the way (Coke had already been funding the research for many years).  And although the organization went belly up in November of the very next year (stick around to see why), Coca-Cola managed to pay for several hundred studies, the driving theme always the same; that our epidemic of obesity and chronic illness has not been fueled by sugar (particularly SUGARY BEVERAGES), but instead by sedentary lifestyles. 

How bad was the fallout?  When the cat was finally let out of the bag as far as who was actually funding GEBN, not only did Blair find himself out of a job (he "retired"), so did one of the other head honchos (Dr. Hand lost his job as Dean of West Virginia's School of Public Health).  Not only were these gentlemen paid handsomely for being industry shills, Coke was funding GEBN to do studies showing just how 'harmless' sugar really is.  Recently, one of BMJ's numerous publications (the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health) published an Oxford-led paper that read more like a sordid tell-all that may have been more at home in the Enquirer than a scientific journal --- Science Organizations and Coca-Cola’s ‘War’ with the Public Health Community: Insights from an Internal Industry Document.

I am not going to spend any real time here because you can probably guess what was going on by recalling what Big Tobacco was doing three decades ago (plus the study is free online).  Basically, Coke put the framework for GEBN in place, complete with internal memos revealing not only that the sole motive was making money and creating favorable public policy, but they also hid their relationship to the scientific community, not letting on that they were paying for the entire shindig, while making it look like Blair and his brethren were coming to all of these conclusions of their own.  Newly revealed records show they weren't. Case in point, another study, also from England (Coca-Cola – A Model of Transparency in Research Partnerships? A Network Analysis of Coca-Cola’s Research Funding (2008–2016)), published in the Cambridge Core.  Here are some cherry-picked highlights.

"There is concern in public health that The Coca-Cola Company may fund research that benefits its corporate interests and diverts attention from the role of sugar-sweetened beverages in the obesity epidemic.  In 2015, The Coca-Cola Company published several lists of health professionals, scientific experts and academic researchers with whom it collaborated and whose research it funded between 2010 and 2015. It is not clear whether these lists are comprehensive. The Coca-Cola Company, in conjunction with The Coca-Cola Foundation and the Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness, has funded 389 studies between 2008 and 2016, published in 169 journals, involving more than 1000 authors.  Although Coca-Cola took a step towards transparency, our data have shown major gaps and errors in its disclosures of research funding: Coca-Cola has acknowledged only forty-two out of 513 potential investigators on grants awarded by the company.  Coca-Cola predominantly funds research on nutrition, with a focus on physical activity, the concept of ‘energy balance’ and how these two factors relate to obesity and diabetes."

Transparency?  Surely you jest.  Coke was about as transparent as our government's been (make sure to go see the new movie Chappaquiddick this weekend) --- particularly once this charade was exposed by journalist Larry Husten, and Medical Doctor Yoni Freedhoff.  How one could conceivably refer to 42 of 907 "Coke" researchers (4.6%) as transparent is beyond me.  And honestly, while Coke probably thought they were making a a good choice in Blair, I've always been adamant that doctors (and in this case, exercise physiologists), no matter how intellectual, academic, or "nice," SHOULD LEAD FROM THE FRONT.  Nothing destroys credibility faster than someone who is severely overweight telling the public the best ways to LOSE WEIGHT --- kind of like a virgin working as a SEX THERAPIST. Furthermore, Blair's ongoing public debate with Cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra (see the link on 'Heart Disease' above) has shown just how off-base and financially conflicted he and GEBN really were/are.

Bottom line, this is how it rolls with way too much of what we oxymoronically refer to as 'EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE'.  And if you think that this sort of thing is not happening times ten with significant numbers of DRUG & DEVICE STUDIES, I have this bridge in Brooklyn I've been wanting to get rid of; cheap.  If you are struggling with with chronic health conditions, weight included, I'm giving you (completely free of charge and with no strings attached) a protocol to start moving your personal health-o-meter in a different direction.  It's not designed to cure any specific disease, but to make your body function better by promoting proper physiology and homeostasis (HERE). 

If you know someone who could benefit from this information, be sure to get it in front of them by liking, sharing, or following on FACEBOOK --- the best way going to reach those you love and care about most with information that could potentially save their lives.

"Overall sales of carbonated soft drinks dropped for the 11th consecutive year in the U.S. Total volume declined 1.2% in 2015, an acceleration from 2014's 0.9% drop, as the biggest three players in the category all reported falling demand, according to a new report from industry tracker Beverage Digest."  Taken from John Kell's March, 2016 article in Fortune called Soda Consumption Falls to 30-Year Low In The U.S.  Wow!  It sort of begs the question of just how little soda American consumers are drinking these days?  "The group reported that annual per capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks dropped to about 650 eight-ounce servings in 2015 – the lowest since 1985."

Holy carbonated beverages Batman.  When we enthusiastically applaud the fact that every man, woman, and child in America is "only" drinking 5,200 ounces of soda per year (81 gallons), something is darn drastically wrong with our society.  Because of the health-related problems associated with consuming this much soda, there have been any number of ideas kicked around to further curb these numbers, including increased taxes.  The thought process behind increasing government taxation on sweetened beverages (mostly this means soda, although it could be your Starbucks, your McDonald's shake, or any of hundreds of other products) is that it's been used with other things like CIGARETTES. In other words, bad behavior will be punished by taxes so high that many Americans (the hope is most Americans) will decide to bail on said habits.  It sounds kind of warm and fuzzy, but government policies seem to have a way of not working out as planned.

When I Googled "have cigarette taxes curbed smoking?," I received a wide array of answers, the majority of which argued that it had not.  In fact, there was even an article in the New York Post from last year (The Great Cigarette Tax Lie) that stated, "On the contrary, in tandem with a tobacco advertising ban, higher taxes have made teen smoking cooler than ever. In fact....."  And let's face it; when the government has taxed other things in similar fashion (gambling for instance) the money rarely ends up going where it was promised (HEALTHCARE, education, law enforcement, etc).  Or if it does so initially, it winds up getting pilfered AS SEEN IN THIS ONE MINUTE VIDEO.

Because the under-25 crowd gets the majority of their calories from soda and other sugary drinks (HERE), the government's desire is to tax said products out of existence (so riddle me this; why can you buy these and similar products with Food Stamps?  ANSWER FOUND HERE). Just two short days ago, the open source medical journal PLoS One published a study by researchers from the University of São Paulo, University of Bristol, Imperial University of London, and St. Louis Missouri's own Washington University School of Medicine, called Artificially Sweetened Beverages and the Response to the Global Obesity Crisis.  After spending time discussing the severity of the obesity and diabetes epidemics as related to "sugary drinks," the authors admitted that as to increasing the taxes on them, "the effectiveness of these interventions is still emerging." Here are the rest of the author's cherry-picked conclusions.

"ASBs (artificially sweetened beverages) are marketed as healthy alternatives to SSBs (sugar-sweetened beverages). The potential benefits from ASBs rely on the assumption that they elicit no energy compensation [zero calories]. However, there are long-standing concerns that ASBs may trigger compensatory mechanisms, which could offset a reduction in energy and sugar intake provided by their replacement of SSBs.  Systematic reviews of observational studies indicate that ASB intake is positively associated with increased body mass index in both children and adults and to cardiometabolic disease risk (e.g., type 2 diabetes and stroke). More recently published data suggest that artificial sweeteners may contribute to the development of glucose intolerance by altering the composition and functions of gut microbiota.  The absence of evidence to support the role of ASBs in preventing weight gain and the lack of studies on other long-term effects on health strengthen the position that ASBs should not be promoted as part of a healthy diet. Far from helping to solve the global obesity crisis, characteristics related to ASB composition makes them a potential risk factor for highly prevalent chronic diseases."

Not surprisingly, the authors went on to talk about study bias, saying that for the most part the numerous studies showing health benefits of swapping out regular soda with diet soda are being done by groups funded by (drum roll please) THE SUGAR INDUSTRY, which is (as stated by the authors) going out of its way to hide this fact.  Furthermore, the paragraph above, both raises and answers some intriguing questions in one fell swoop; the biggest being how can a product that has no sugar and no calories be associated with STROKES, OBESITY, CARDIOMETABOLIC SYNDROME, DIABETES, GLUCOSE INTOLERANCE / INSULIN RESISTANCE, and other "CHRONIC DISEASES"?  The answer, folks, is not only right there in front of your face, it's in your Gut and all over your body as well. As always, it's all about your MICROBIOME. 

If you are interested in at least skimming titles, I have provided you A LINK to the articles I've written on this very topic, with the peer-reviewed studies showing that in many cases, people drinking diet beverages gain as much as twice as much weight (mostly in the form of BELLY FAT) as those drinking sugar-sweetened beverages (Gulp!).

If you are a regular reader of my column, you realize that SODA POP is bad for you on many different levels.  Much of this has to do with the fact that it is arguably the leading reason for the wide variety of health problems associated with UNCONTROLLED BLOOD SUGAR ---- including DIABETES.  And in case you were not aware, soda is now the number one source of calories for the 15-25 crowd (HERE) and is being directly linked to America's obesity epidemic --- an epidemic that is starting to show itself worldwide (HERE).  In fact, blood sugar regulation issues are the root of almost every single health problem you can name. 

It seems that public pressure has finally got to Coca Cola and forced them to at least pay lip service to changing their marketing strategies.  And it's not only Coca Cola.  It seems PepsiCo and other beverage giants are succumbing to public pressure as well.  CEO of Coca Cola, Muhtar Kent went as far to say that, "the key here is to ensure that in every market where we operate to have no- or low-calorie beverages of our main brands available".  The push is to diversify into fruit juices (most of which are 90% sugar water), DIET SODA, and sports drinks.  But is this really beneficial? 

Hopefully, you read my recent piece on DIET SODA.  Numerous recent studies have shown that diet soda is actually responsible for more obesity instead of less --- almost twice as much.  When are people going to wake up to the fact that calorie count doesn't mean much (HERE)?  Processed sugar is bad all around, and even natural sugars should be consumed in moderation.  Then there is HFCS.   But the truth is that the diet versions of all of these are worse --- much worse.  It is important to understand this and educate your children about it from an early age.

Believe it or not, it's a question I get all the time; Which soda is better for me, diet or regular?  Huh?  You're asking me?  You already know my answer to that question grasshopper.  Neither one is better.  They are both bad for you.  But not equally bad.

REGULAR SODA is crazy high in white sugar.  Regular consumption of white sugar can cause a myriad of health problems by ruining your body's ability to CONTROL ITS BLOOD SUGAR LEVELS.  In fact, it seems that every study coming out about the dangers of PROCESSED SUGAR (particularly HFCS) are freakier than the study that came out before it. This is scary considering the explosion of Diabetes here in America and the fact that studies are saying that for those in the 15 - 25 age group; their #1 source of calories is soda (HERE).  But despite the problems that regular soda creates, it seems that diet soda is worse --- possibly much worse.

A large European study of over 15,000 subjects that was published this week in the medical journal Diabetologia, said that just one can (12 oz) of regular, sugar-sweetened soda a day increased one's chances of developing Type II Diabetes by 22%.  However, if that drink is a diet drink ("artificially-sweetened") your chances of developing Type II Diabetes increase an additional 30 points to an astounding 52%.   In the words of the immortal Harry Caray, "Holy Cow"!    But truthfully, you should not be surprised.  Clear back in October of 2011 I wrote about DIET SODA, using a study by Dr. Sharon Fowler of the University of Texas Health Science Center.

Harvard School of Public Health's Gitanjali Singh (PhD) recently published the results of 2010's Global Burden of Diseases Study.   We are already aware of soda's link to OBESITY, but his team's conclusions concerning SODA POP and other sugary drinks and death?  Nearly 200,000 people are dying worldwide (25,000 of the deaths occurring here in the United States) ---- mostly from heart disease, DIABETES, and CANCER --- as a direct result of the sugar they are consuming from "Sugary Drinks".  My guess is that his estimation is too low --- maybe way too low.  The results were reported earlier this week at the American Heart Association's (AHA) Epidemiology and Prevention/Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism 2013 Scientific Sessions.

While the AHA recommends a maximum of 450 calories a week from sugary drinks, much of the world is following America's lead and going beyond that ---- far beyond that.  In fact, I saw a recent study touting the fact that the number one source of calories for American teens was soda (HERE).  Here are some other "Fun Facts" concerning American consumption of soda and other sugary drinks that come from this and other studies.

• About 10% of our nation's calories are coming from soda and sugary drinks.

• 5% of the American population over two years old is consuming at least 48 oz of soda or sugary drinks per day.

• The Institute of Medicine recommends that a maximum of 25 percent of our calories should come from added sugar (one more reason you cannot trust the government to keep you healthy).

• According to a 2010 study published in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), 1 in 6 Americans is surpassing the 25% mark.

• Cal State Davis published, in a 2011 issue of The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, that just two weeks of exceeding the 25% added-sugar limit using HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup) as the source of sugar, dramatically increased cholesterol, triglycerides, and other markers of cardiovascular disease.

• In 1977 and 1978, boys drank over double the amount of milk as compared to soft drinks (at my house it was probably 25 times that), and girls 50 percent more milk than soft drinks. By 1994–96, boys and girls were drinking over double the amount of soda as milk.

• Soda and sugar are both associated with lower intake of vitamins, minerals, and fiber.

• Numerous studies show proof that soda and sugary drinks are directly related to weight gain, overweight, and obesity, which puts people at risk for Type II Diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, and cancer ---- all of which continue to be seen in younger and younger populations.

• Soda is a known cause of OSTEOPOROSIS and contributes to kidney stones.

• I could go on and on and on.

Interestingly enough, several governmental organizations are telling citizens to cut the sugar by consuming "Diet Soda".  With what we now know about Aspartame (NutraSweet), how beneficial can this be?  Not only is this stuff bad in every conceivable manner, it actually causes more weight gain than normal soda (HERE)  It seems that people are very confused these days.  They are SWAPPING SUGAR FOR MORE SUGAR and assuming that juice-like drinks or "Sports Drinks" must be good for them because they made people like Michael Jordan, Peyton Manning, and Mia Hamm, what they are today.  Get kids hooked, and they're too often HOOKED FOR LIFE.

I am home alone for a few days.  I flipped on the T.V. last evening to watch some Olympics (wanted to catch the finals of the 100 meters) and my wife happened to be taping 60 minutes. The first segment of the program was an interview with Robert H. Lustig M.D.   Lustig is a professor at the University of San Francisco, but he is not your everyday run-of-the-mill M.D. who DOES NOT GIVE A RIP about the nutritional status of his patients (which he believes to be the number one underlying cause of a myriad of health problems).  He wanted to know why he was seeing so many patients --- many of them young children ---- with INFLAMMATORY DISEASES such as OBESITY, HIGH CHOLESTEROL, INSULIN RESISTANCE / DIABETES, and all the markers of heart disease.  His conclusion; sugar ---- the worst offender being HFCS or High Fructose Corn Syrup.  Before you write Dr. Lustig off as just another in an ever growing list of "Anti-Sugar Fanatics", check out his credentials.  Wikipedia's bio on Lustig has this to say.

Lustig obtained his bachelors degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1976, and received his M.D. from Cornell University Medical College in 1980. From there, he spent six years as a research associate in neuroendocrinology at The Rockefeller University. He performed his pediatric residency at St. Louis Children's Hospital, and his clinical fellowship at University of California San Francisco which he joined in 1984.  He has authored over 85 research articles and 45 book chapters. He is the former Chairman of the Obesity Task Force of the Pediatric Endocrine Society, a member of the Obesity Task force of The Endocrine Society, and on the Steering Committee of the International Endocrine Alliance to Combat Obesity.  On May 26, 2009, Lustig gave a lecture called “Sugar: The Bitter Truth”, which is posted on YouTube.  The video has gone viral.

Not only does Dr. Lustig state that sugar is as addictive as Cocaine; a statement that I MYSELF HAVE MADE many times on this very blog, he says that high amounts of the naturally occurring sugar "FRUCTOSE" can cause all sorts of metabolic problems including HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, Insulin Resistance and Type II Diabetes, Obesity, High Cholesterol, High Triglycerides, Metabolic Syndrome, Heart Disease, etc, etc, etc.  Here are a few of the things that Lustig is saying about Fructose that are backed up by hard science.  And remember; about 85 - 90% of the added sugar we consume on a daily basis comes from Fructose in the form of HFCS (see link on Fructose).

• Fructose causes high uric acid levels, that lead to both High Blood Pressure and gout.  I blogged about this (HERE) almost a year ago.
• Fructose causes your liver to synthesize fats, which leads to high cholesterol, high triglycerides, and heart disease.
• Fructose causes Insulin Resistance (high levels of blood sugar and insulin simultaneously), which in turn causes Type II Diabetes --- a problem now being seen in grade school children.
• Fructose increases fat deposits in the liver.  The number one cause of fatty liver and Cirrhosis is not alcohol abuse ---- it's sugar consumption.
• Unlike other foods, Fructose does not reduce the hunger hormone ghrelin.  Ghrelin by way of affecting both insulin and the hormone leptin, tells the brain to stop eating.  No Ghrelin, and you keep on eating ----- fructose.
• Fructose feeds cancer.  Although the 60 Minutes interviewer oooohed and ahhhhhhed over the research on this topic, it has been common knowledge for decades.  Simply do a Google search on "SUGAR FEEDS CANCER" and see what comes up.  I promise you'll be freaked out --- even though the medical community is doing their best to bury this information.

By any measure, Americans consume a lot of sugar.  Even the conservative estimates say that Americans are eating between 1/3 and 1/2 lb of sugar per person per day, with no end in sight.  One of my most popular blog posts ever was on this very topic; unbridled sugar consumption and the affect of uncontrolled blood sugar on our health.  It is the transcript of a talk that I delivered to our local Rotary club about six months ago ----- a short, two part series called, THE NUMBER ONE HEALTH PROBLEM IN AMERICA TODAY. If you are interested in getting off the sugar, go back and click on the link just below Dr. Lustig's video.

According to new research, teenagers who drink soda are more likely to carry a weapon and act violently.  These are the conclusions of Dr. Sara Solnick of the University of Vermont and Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health, who analyzed data collected from nearly 2,000 public high schools in 2008.

Those who drank five or more cans of soda pop every week were significantly more likely to have also used alcohol and smoked cigarettes at least once in the previous month.   The researchers also found that heavy consumption of soda pop was significantly associated with carrying a gun or knife, as well as violence toward peers, family, and partners.

Not quite a quarter of those who drank one or no cans of soda a week carried a gun or knife, and 15 percent had perpetrated violence toward a partner. In comparison, among those who consumed 14 or more cans a week, 43 percent carried a gun or knife and 27 percent had been violent toward a partner.

Think about it folks.  As parents, we all know what soda does to the behavior of little children.  Is there any reason to believe that older children (and even adults) are not affected as well?

Americans have a pathological obsession with soda pop (our per-capita consumption is approaching a gallon a week)!  A recent study said that soda pop is the number one source of calories for the under-25 crowd.  It's an ugly addiction that rivals that of any drug.  However, we also happen to have the worst rate of osteoporosis in the world as well ---- and the drugs that Big Pharma has come up with as the solution for this problem, are actually CAUSING OSTEOPOROSIS.  We all know that there is a direct correlation to SODA CONSUMPTION & OBESITY (ESPECIALLY DIET SODA).  But is there a correlation between soda pop and osteoporosis?  You betcha there is!

Bone is a living and dynamic tissue that responds to mechanical stresses and loads by becoming stronger.  This is why lack of weight-bearing exercise ---- STRENGTH TRAINING (not a lack of dietary calcium) is considered to be the number one cause of osteoporosis.  And we all know that there is not a more sedentary people on the planet than Americans. 

But let's move beyond this issue of "sedentary" for a moment and talk about the effects of acidity.  Your body likes a pH of about 7.  This is smack dab in the middle of a pH chart, and considered "neutral" (see chart below).  As an over-generalized rule, most healthy foods tend to be alkali (above 7), while most unhealthy foods tend to be acidic (below 7) --- the more acidic a food is, the worse it is for you.  This is a big reason that sick people are almost always acidic.  The chart below comes from the University of Minnesota's School of Dentistry, and is a list of the most acidic brands of soda. 

Be aware that a pH scale is analog.  This means that each number is a factor of 10 times greater or less than the numbers next to it.  For example; milk is 10 times more acidic than pure water, and the banana is 10 times more acidic than milk.  This means that a banana is 100 times more acidic than pure water.  What can we say about soda pop?  If it is, on average, pH 3, then it's 10,000 times more acidic than pure water.  If it is pH 2.5, it will be about 50,000 times more acidic than pure water.  Why am I talking about 2.5 pH soda?  Stay with me for a moment.

Two of the most common soda brands (Pepsi & Coke) both have pH's right at an almost absurd pH of 2.5 (approximately 50,000 times more acidic than pure water).  Forget, for a moment, that diseases thrive in acidic environments (read our posts on SUGAR FEEDING CANCER).  Let's try and figure out how soda pop or other acidic foods cause osteoporosis.

Many of us have used vinegar to clean mineral (calcium) deposits from our shower heads.  Just take a plastic baggie full of vinegar, put it on the shower head, rubber band it in place, let it sit over night, and presto!  The next morning the softened calcium deposit wipes off as easily as bacon grease from a stove top!  Although this is not the exact mechanism that soda consumption causes osteoporosis, you should be starting to get the picture.  Acid dissolves calcium!

BUFFERING STRONG ACIDS:
So, why don't I immediately die when I drink a Pepsi ---- after all, it is 50,000 times more acidic than water?  It is because your body was created with a series of internal pumps and buffers to blunt the effects of strong acids.  This is because you will die if your body cannot maintain a slightly alkali blood pH of between the narrow range of 7.35 and 7.45.  Any higher or lower, and you rapidly run the risk of extreme consequences (including Rigor Mortis!).  If you drink just one 12 ounce can of Pepsi or Coke (and in this age of the "Big Gulp", who drinks just 12 ounces any more?), it will take four (4) gallons of alkali water (pH 9) to buffer this acid.  I personally don't know very many people who chase their soda pop with a five gallon bucket of water!  So what does your body do to survive this acid insult if gallons and gallons of alkali water are not readily available?  It has to get buffering power from somewhere else --- quickly.  So it steals buffering power in the form of calcium from the easiest available source(s)

Think for a moment.  When it comes to heartburn and acid indigestion / reflux, we have all been brain washed to think in terms of Rolaids Spells Relief, and Tums for the Tummy; but what is it in those products that buffers or neutralizes acid?  Calcium!  Calcium Carbonate --- the same kind of calcium found found in limestone, oyster shells, or egg shells.  Calcium Carbonate has another name you might be more familiar with --- chalk.  By the way, calcium from rocks and shells is a terrible source of dietary calcium (HERE), unless you enjoy hardened arteries and arthritis.  Only use calcium supplements that comes from raw (cold processed) bone (HERE)!

When you drink SODA --- yes even DIET SODA, your body explodes into action to buffer the extremely high acid that is invading the system.  It needs buffering power and it needs it quick.  Where does it get it?  It gets it from the most readily available sources of calcium that it can find ---- calcium from blood, bone, and DNA.  So, every time you drink soda (or eat other high acid content foods --- SUGAR, white flour, etc), your body is robbing Peter to pay Paul.  It is stealing calcium from vital parts of the body, and using it to buffer the effects of the soda.  This is why I urge women (particularly small women, or women who used to be small) to avoid soda at all costs.  If you don't, the medical community will use a bone density test to sell you on the fact that you have Osteoporosis, and need one of the so-called "BONE BUILDING DRUGS" --- drugs that actually CAUSE OSTEOPOROSIS!