Fat 2 Fit #104 – Diet Coke: Good or Bad


Written on September 1, 2010 – 5:00 am | by Russ Turley

Debbie is drinking 48 ounces of Diet Mountain Dew a day.  Her husband is concerned that the diet soda is making her eat more, rather than less as she claims.  We go around and around on this subject, but what is the latest and greatest information on diet soda and it’s effects on the body?

Kelly wrote in confused about calories.  She followed the advice of a fitness site and wants to know about net calories vs. actual calories.  How many calories should she be consuming to lose weight?  How fast can she expect to lose the weight?  It’s never a popular answer, but the slow the weight loss the better and our answer to Kelly is no different.

On the Web Report, Jeff has a couple of articles.  The first one is about the high cost of caring for those that are obese.  Obesity related health costs are are estimated around $147 Billion.  Yikes!  The second is about the benefits of water in weight loss.  Russ has an article, also related to health costs, about the state of South Carolina paying for 100 government workers to have weight loss surgery.  The second is a list of surprisingly sodium rich foods that should be avoided, particularly for those with hypertension.  You don’t have to add salt to your food to have a high sodium diet.

Links Mentioned in the Show:
NIH Article on diet soda
Artificial Sweeteners may cause weight gain
Fat 2 Fit Radio Calculators
Obese medical costs
Weight loss and water
Weight loss surgery for government workers
Salty foods

Recipe of the Week:
Rather than a recipe of the week, here’s another food that might help you in your weight loss, Eggbeater Whites.

Listen here, or subscribe to automatically receive future shows.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Related Posts:

Tags: , , , , , ,

  1. One Response to “Fat 2 Fit #104 – Diet Coke: Good or Bad”

  2. By terry on Sep 21, 2010 | Reply

    Hi guys-
    I still love your podcast!
    I just wanted to say that when talking about adjusting calories/workout for results, I like it better to say “faster results” rather than “better results” as was said in advising Kelly’s question about creating a calorie deficit by eating at the sedentary level while adding activity to bump the deficit up.
    It’s just semantics, but semantics have a sneaky way of creating mindsets. Slow and steady is “better” for some than “faster”, so “faster” does not equal “better.” I wouldn’t want anyone to start thinking that their slow and steady success is in anyway less than GREAT!!!

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.