New “Lower Calorie” Sodas Are Not Much Different than The Regular Sodas

The soda wars heat up again. This time is not regular Coke vs. Pepsi but so-called “reduced calorie” diet sodas. Maybe the companies are getting the message, full-calorie sodas are the number one cause of obesity in the US. Candice Choi, AP science writer writes in the San Francisco Examiner (July 27, 2012), “Soda Taste: How the New Sodas Stack Up.” She points out:

“So The Associated Press asked a panel that included a food blogger and Bruce Bozzi, who heads marketing at The Palm steakhouses, to come to its New York City headquarters to gauge how the latest generation of low-calorie sodas stack up to the originals. The verdict? Soft drink makers have a long way to go.”

New Lower Calorie Diet Soda

“Included were Pepsi Next, Pepsi and 10-calorie versions of Dr Pepper’s Sunkist and A&W Root Beer, which are supposed to have a fuller taste than their zero-calorie, diet soda counterparts. Coca-Cola’s Sprite Select and Fanta Select, which are made with natural sweeteners and have 70 calories a can, versus about 140 and 160 for regular Sprite and Fanta, respectively.”

While the 10 calorie versions are a great choice as compared to their full-calorie cousins, the reduced 70 calorie versions are still loaded with calories and sugar. Drinking a single one of these drinks a day adds about 10 lbs per year.

Soda Adds Waist Size

« Previous Article
Next Article »


  • I call BS here. How does this show that diet sodas can speed up weight loss? All it does is talk about “lower calorie sodas” being better than full calorie…its been pointed out that diet soda leaves your body craving sugar (that it’s expecting but not getting)and artificial sweeteners are bad for you plus cause stalls… Hence why I started using stevia and drinking only Zevia and the like along with water and homemade teas last time on hcg. I also was under the impression that sugar is bad for you in any firm, even honey is the same.

    • Your statements that artificial sweetener “leaves your body craving sugar,” is “bad for you,” and can “cause stalls,” reflects the conventional ‘wisdom’ that has been circulating for decades – but has never been scientifically proven. Here are three scientific reports that show there is no weight gain and maybe some weight loss:

      1. “…no effect of artificial sweeteners on weight increase or increase sugar intake.”

      2. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2009 Jan; 89(1):1-14. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2008.26792. Epub 2008 Dec 3.
      “The addition of NNS [non-nutritive sweeteners] to diets poses no benefit for weight loss or reduced weight gain without energy restriction. There are long-standing and recent concerns that inclusion of NNS in the diet promotes energy intake and contributes to obesity. Most of the purported mechanisms by which this occurs are not supported by the available evidence, although some warrant further consideration. Resolution of this important issue will require long-term randomized controlled trials.”

      3. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care (PubMed):
      November 2012 – Volume 15 – Issue 6 – p 597–604 FUNCTIONAL FOODS AND DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS: Edited by Nathalie M. Delzenne and Gerard E. Mullin
      “Recent findings: Short-term intervention studies have shown divergent results wrt appetite regulation, but overall artificial sweeteners cannot be claimed to affect hunger. Data from longer term intervention studies are scarce, but together they point toward a beneficial effect of artificial sweeteners on energy intake, body weight, liver fat, fasting and postprandial glycemia, insulinemia, and/or lipidemia compared with sugar. Epidemiological studies are not equivocal, but large cohort studies from the USA point toward decreased body weight and lower risk of type-2 diabetes and coronary heart diseases with increased intake of artificial sweeteners compared with sugar.
      Summary: “Artificial sweeteners, especially in beverages, can be a useful aid to maintain reduced energy intake and body weight and decrease risk of type-2 diabetes and CVD compared with sugars. However, confirmative long-term intervention trials are still needed.”

Receive comment updates via RSS

Leave a Comment