Това ли е горчивата истина за диетичната кока кола?
Диетичната Кола повишава апетита
От 0 до 0,3 ккал на 100 мл от напитката е – главното предимство на Кола-лайт. Това привлича отслабващите в цял свят, защото пълният отказ от вредни храни е по-труден, отколко преминаването към някакви техни аналози. Но експерти от научното дружество Council of Science Editors (САЩ) твърдят, че газираните напитки без захар не момагат за намаляване на теглото. Въглеродния двуокис в състава на напитката дразни стените на стомаха, стимулира отделянето на стомашен сок и човек огладнява по-бързо. За тези, които са на диета, подобно изпитание не носи нищо добро. Много по-полезно за тях е да минат на чиста вода.
Колата без захар лошо утолява жаждата
Вместо захар в диетичната Кола се съдържа захарозаместител – аспртам. Именно той пречи на напитката да утолява жаждата. Останките от аспартама много бавно се изчистват със слюнката от устата, оставяйки сладникав привкус, който предизвиква желание отново и отново да се пие. Тази особеност стимулира продажбите, особенно в горещите месеци от годината.
Диетичната Кола не се препоръчва на бременните
На бутилките с Кола-лайт не пиша за потенциална опасност за бъдещите майки но ако изучите противопоказанията на аспартама, то ще намерите там предупреждение за бременни и кърмачки. Важно е да се знае: максималната дневна доза от аспартам е 50 мг на 1 кг тегло. За да не прекалите с диетичната Кола внимателно изучете състава й. Иначе може да се появят неприятни симптоми – алергия, главоболие, повдигане.
2
Коментара по темата
2.
въй въй въй
14.02.2016 09:57:58
Пиши на Български.Намираш се в БЪЛГАРИЯ.
1.
ЧЕТИ ЗА АСПАРТАМА
13.02.2016 22:40:09
Conclusions
We found a considerable weight of evidence in favour of consumption of LES in place of sugar as helpful in reducing relative EI and BW, with no evidence from the many acute and sustained intervention studies in humans that LES increase EI. Importantly, the effects of LES-sweetened beverages on BW also appear neutral relative to water, or even beneficial in some contexts.
A selection of animal and observational studies is often cited as the primary basis for strong assertions that LES are a contributing factor toward risk of overeating and obesity.5 In contrast, the present review of a large and systematically identified body of evidence from human intervention studies, with varying designs, settings and populations (including children and adults, males and females, and lean, overweight and obese groups), provide no support for that view. The question then is whether those hypotheses should be rejected or whether, as seems unlikely, the relevant human intervention studies are consistently flawed in a way that leads, in most cases, to exactly the opposite outcome.
Commentaries on LES and energy balance frequently suggest that further research is needed, but stop short of proposing any specific new hypothesis to test or new study designs. Although no single study by itself is conclusive, the correspondence of results from the studies reviewed here gives no reason to expect another similar study would yield remarkably different results. Continued selective citation and extrapolation from observational and animal studies on this topic is also likely to be of limited value. Mattes & Popkin1 concluded that replacement of sugar by LES has ‘the potential to aid in BW management, but whether they will be used in this way is uncertain’ (p 10). This seems a reasonable conclusion from the literature, and shifts the issue from whether LES are ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ and re-focuses it on the question of how they are best used in practice to help in the achievement of specific public health goals, such as the reduction of intakes of free sugars and energy.
Topof page
Conflict of interest
Peter J Rogers has received grants from Sugar Nutrition, UK in support of research on the effects of sugar on human appetite. Cees de Graaf has received grants from the Dutch Sugar Bureau in support of a study on brain responses to sugars and low energy sweeteners. Suzanne Higgs has received a grant from Canderel in support of research on the effects of low-energy sweeteners on human appetite. Anne Lluch and David J Mela are employees and shareholders of companies that manufacture products containing sugars and low-energy sweeteners. Peter Putz is an employee of ILSI Europe. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.
We found a considerable weight of evidence in favour of consumption of LES in place of sugar as helpful in reducing relative EI and BW, with no evidence from the many acute and sustained intervention studies in humans that LES increase EI. Importantly, the effects of LES-sweetened beverages on BW also appear neutral relative to water, or even beneficial in some contexts.
A selection of animal and observational studies is often cited as the primary basis for strong assertions that LES are a contributing factor toward risk of overeating and obesity.5 In contrast, the present review of a large and systematically identified body of evidence from human intervention studies, with varying designs, settings and populations (including children and adults, males and females, and lean, overweight and obese groups), provide no support for that view. The question then is whether those hypotheses should be rejected or whether, as seems unlikely, the relevant human intervention studies are consistently flawed in a way that leads, in most cases, to exactly the opposite outcome.
Commentaries on LES and energy balance frequently suggest that further research is needed, but stop short of proposing any specific new hypothesis to test or new study designs. Although no single study by itself is conclusive, the correspondence of results from the studies reviewed here gives no reason to expect another similar study would yield remarkably different results. Continued selective citation and extrapolation from observational and animal studies on this topic is also likely to be of limited value. Mattes & Popkin1 concluded that replacement of sugar by LES has ‘the potential to aid in BW management, but whether they will be used in this way is uncertain’ (p 10). This seems a reasonable conclusion from the literature, and shifts the issue from whether LES are ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ and re-focuses it on the question of how they are best used in practice to help in the achievement of specific public health goals, such as the reduction of intakes of free sugars and energy.
Topof page
Conflict of interest
Peter J Rogers has received grants from Sugar Nutrition, UK in support of research on the effects of sugar on human appetite. Cees de Graaf has received grants from the Dutch Sugar Bureau in support of a study on brain responses to sugars and low energy sweeteners. Suzanne Higgs has received a grant from Canderel in support of research on the effects of low-energy sweeteners on human appetite. Anne Lluch and David J Mela are employees and shareholders of companies that manufacture products containing sugars and low-energy sweeteners. Peter Putz is an employee of ILSI Europe. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.