Study: Diet Drinks Don’t Promote Weight Loss

>>Follow Matzav On Whatsapp!<<

Although diet and sugar-free drinks are often promoted as healthier choices, a new study found they are no more helpful for losing weight or preventing weight gain than their full-sugar versions, Newsmax Health reports.

Diet drinks contain no sugar and are sweetened with artificial sweeteners instead, and they are often believed by consumers to be healthier. But, say researchers from Imperial College London and two Brazilian universities, there is no solid evidence to support claims they are healthier or that they help prevent obesity and obesity related diseases such as Type 2 diabetes.

“A common perception, which may be influenced by industry marketing, is that because ‘diet’ drinks have no sugar, they must be healthier and aid weight loss when used as a substitute for full sugar versions,” said Christopher Millet from Imperial’s School of Public Health. “However, we found no solid evidence to support this.” Read more at Newsmax Health.



  1. Sounds fishy. If its less calories it has to aid weight loss or prevent gain. Unless one calculates that into it and eats extra calories .

  2. Its the aspertam that is the problem
    There r a few brands thy use appendages rather then aspertam (w.w. & Pepsi now use splenda ) those are nit so bad for diabetes

  3. I lost 40 pounds in 2016 and drank diet soda almost every day. I’m not claiming that the diet soda caused me to lose weight, but it didn’t stop me either.

  4. Yes, the “common perception . . . . is that because ‘diet’ drinks have no sugar, they must be healthier.” However, this is only a “perception” — AND (as this sentence itself here postulates) it is a perception that has been largely fueled by the massive advertising promoting these products. The truth though is that these diet drinks [and other diet (so-called) “foods”] ARE THE ABSOLUTE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ANYTHING “HEALTHY”!! For the two modern artificial sweeteners that are currently used in diet foods, Aspartame and Splenda, ARE BOTH SEVERELY HARMFUL POISONS!!

    On several of the articles that Matzav has published about this subject, I posted a number of comments of important relevant information showing this serious problem. As this information is just as relevant now, B’Ezras Hashem, I will re-post here what I posted at

  5. (Previous comment continued)

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

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

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

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

    (See full write up at

  6. (Previous comment continued)

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


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


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

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

    (See the full explanation at

  7. (Conclusion of the previous comments)

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

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

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

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


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here