Carbonated Water: For Weight Loss, Satiety, Or Just Gas?

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

There are two main mechanisms of action by which sparkling water is considered to help satiety and/or weight loss; they are:

  1. It “fills us up” such that we feel fuller sooner, and thus eat less, and thus (all other things being equal) perhaps lose weight
  2. The carbon dioxide is absorbed into the bloodstream, where (as a matter of chemistry) it improves glucose metabolism, thus lowering blood sugars and indirectly leading (potentially) to weight loss, but even if not, lowered blood sugars are good for most people most of the time, right?

However, there are just a few problems:

Full of gas?

Many people self-report enjoying sparkling water as a way to feel fuller while fasting (or even while eating). However, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”, so, here be data… Ish:

❝In order to determine whether such satiating effects occur through oral carbonic stimulation alone, we conducted modified sham-feeding (SF) tests (carbonated water ingestion (CW), water ingestion (W), carbonated water sham-feeding (CW-SF), and water sham-feeding (W-SF)), employing an equivalent volume and standardized temperature of carbonated and plain water, in a randomized crossover design.

Thirteen young women began fasting at 10 p.m. on the previous night and were loaded with each sample (15ºC, 250 mL) at 9 a.m. on separate days. Electrogastrography (EGG) recordings were obtained from 20 min before to 45 min after the loading to determine the power and frequency of the gastric myoelectrical activity. Appetite was assessed using visual analog scales. After ingestion, significantly increased fullness and decreased hunger ratings were observed in the CW group. After the load, transiently but significantly increased fullness as well as decreased hunger ratings were observed in the CW-SF group. The powers of normogastria (2-4 cpm) and tachygastria (4-9 cpm) showed significant increases in the CW and W groups, but not in the CW-SF and W-SF groups. The peak frequency of normogastria tended to shift toward a higher band in the CW group, whereas it shifted toward a lower band in the CW-SF group, indicating a different EGG rhythm.

Our results suggest that CO2-induced oral stimulation is solely responsible for the feeling of satiety.❞

~ Dr. Maki Suzuki et al.

Now, that’s self-reported, and a sample size of 13, so it’s not the most airtight science ever, but it is at least science. Here’s the paper, by the way:

Oral Carbonation Attenuates Feeling of Hunger and Gastric Myoelectrical Activity in Young Women

Here’s another small study with 8 people, which found that still and sparkling water had the exact same effect:

Effect of carbonated water on gastric emptying and intragastric meal distribution

However, drinking water (still or sparkling) with a meal will not have anywhere near the same effect for satiety as consuming food that has a high water-content.

See also: Some Surprising Truths About Hunger And Satiety ← our main feature in which we examine the science of volumetrics, including a study that shows how water incorporated into a food (but not served with a food) decreases caloric intake.

As an aside, one difference that carbonation can make is to increase ghrelin levels—that’s the hunger hormone (the satiety hormone is leptin, by the way). This one’s a rat study, but it seems reasonable that the same will be true of humans:

Carbon dioxide in carbonated beverages induces ghrelin release and increased food consumption in male rats: implications on the onset of obesity

…which is worth bearing in mind even if you yourself are not, in fact, a male rat.

The glucose guzzler?

This one has simply been the case of a study being misrepresented, for example here:

Fizzy water might aid weight loss by providing a small boost to glucose uptake and metabolism

The idea is that higher levels of carbon dioxide in the blood mean faster glucose metabolism, which is technically true. Now, often “technically true” is the best kind of true, but not here, because it’s simply not useful.

In short, we produce so much carbon dioxide as part of our normal respiratory processes, that any carbon dioxide we might consume in a carbonated water is barely a blip in the graph.

Oh, and that article we just linked? Even within the article, despite running with that headline, the actual scientists quoted are saying such things as:

❝While there is a hypothetical link between carbonated water and glucose metabolism, this has yet to be tested in well-designed human intervention studies❞

~ Professor Sumantra Ray

Note: the word “hypothetical” means “one level lower than theoretical”. This is very far from being a conclusion.

And the study itself? Wasn’t even about carbonated water, it was about kidney dialysis and how the carbon dioxide content can result in hypoglycemia:

The mechanism of hypoglycemia caused by hemodialysis

…which got referenced in this paper (not a study):

Can carbonated water support weight loss?

…and even that concluded:

❝CO2 in carbonated water may promote weight loss by enhancing glucose uptake and metabolism in red blood cells.

However, the amount is so small that it is difficult to expect weight loss effects solely from the CO2 in carbonated water.

Drinking carbonated water may also affect blood glucose measurements.❞

Note: the word “may”, when used by a scientist and in the absence of any stronger claims, means “we haven’t ruled out the possibility”.

What breaking news that is.

Stop the press! No, really, stop it!

So… What does work?

There are various ways of going about actually hacking hunger (and they stack; i.e. you can use multiple methods and get cumulative results), and we wrote about them here:

Hack Your Hunger

Enjoy!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • Cool As A Cucumber
  • 52 Ways to Walk – by Annabel Streets
    Reclaim the joy of walking with Annabel Streets’ captivating blend of science and poetic wonder in “52 Ways to Walk.”

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Hope Not Nope – by Dr. Dillon Caswell

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    The author a Doctor of Physical Therapy, writes from both professional expertise and personal experience, when it comes to the treatment of long term injury / disability / chronic illness.

    His position here is that while suffering is unavoidable, we don’t have to suffer as much or as long as many might tell us. We can do things to crawl and claw our way to a better position, and we do not have to settle for any outcome we don’t want. That doesn’t mean there’s always a miracle cure—we don’t get to decide that—but we do get to decide whether we keep trying.

    Dr. Caswell’s advice is based mostly in psychology—a lot of it in sports psychology, which is no surprise given his long history as an athlete as well as his medical career.

    The style is very easy-reading, and a combination of explanation, illustrative (often funny) anecdotes, and a backbone of actual research to keep everything within the realms of science rather than mere wishful thinking—he strikes a good balance.

    Bottom line: if your current health outlook is more of an uphill marathon, then this book can give you the tools to carry yourself through the healthcare system that’s been made for numbers, not people.

    Click here to check out Hope Not Nope, and keep going!

    Share This Post

  • Oral retinoids can harm unborn babies. But many women taking them for acne may not be using contraception

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Oral retinoids are a type of medicine used to treat severe acne. They’re sold under the brand name Roaccutane, among others.

    While oral retinoids are very effective, they can have harmful effects if taken during pregnancy. These medicines can cause miscarriages and major congenital abnormalities (harm to unborn babies) including in the brain, heart and face. At least 30% of children exposed to oral retinoids in pregnancy have severe congenital abnormalities.

    Neurodevelopmental problems (in learning, reading, social skills, memory and attention) are also common.

    Because of these risks, the Australasian College of Dermatologists advises oral retinoids should not be prescribed a month before or during pregnancy under any circumstances. Dermatologists are instructed to make sure a woman isn’t pregnant before starting this treatment, and discuss the risks with women of childbearing age.

    But despite this, and warnings on the medicines’ packaging, pregnancies exposed to oral retinoids continue to be reported in Australia and around the world.

    In a study published this month, we wanted to find out what proportion of Australian women of reproductive age were taking oral retinoids, and how many of these women were using contraception.

    Our results suggest a high proportion of women are not using effective contraception while on these drugs, indicating Australia needs a strategy to reduce the risk oral retinoids pose to unborn babies.

    Contraception options

    Using birth control to avoid pregnancy during oral retinoid treatment is essential for women who are sexually active. Some contraception methods, however, are more reliable than others.

    Long-acting-reversible contraceptives include intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted into the womb (such as Mirena, Kyleena, or copper devices) and implants under the skin (such as Implanon). These “set and forget” methods are more than 99% effective.

    A newborn baby in a clear crib in hospital.
    Oral retinoids taken during pregnancy can cause complications in babies. Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

    The effectiveness of oral contraceptive pills among “perfect” users (following the directions, with no missed or late pills) is similarly more than 99%. But in typical users, this can fall as low as 91%.

    Condoms, when used as the sole method of contraception, have higher failure rates. Their effectiveness can be as low as 82% in typical users.

    Oral retinoid use over time

    For our study, we analysed medicine dispensing data among women aged 15–44 from Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) between 2013 and 2021.

    We found the dispensing rate for oral retinoids doubled from one in every 71 women in 2013, to one in every 36 in 2021. The increase occurred across all ages but was most notable in young women.

    Most women were not dispensed contraception at the same time they were using the oral retinoids. To be sure we weren’t missing any contraception that was supplied before the oral retinoids, we looked back in the data. For example, for an IUD that lasts five years, we looked back five years before the oral retinoid prescription.

    Our analysis showed only one in four women provided oral retinoids were dispensed contraception simultaneously. This was even lower for 15- to 19-year-olds, where only about one in eight women who filled a prescription for oral retinoids were dispensed contraception.

    A recent study found 43% of Australian year 10 and 69% of year 12 students are sexually active, so we can’t assume this younger age group largely had no need for contraception.

    One limitation of our study is that it may underestimate contraception coverage, because not all contraceptive options are listed on the PBS. Those options not listed include male and female sterilisation, contraceptive rings, condoms, copper IUDs, and certain oral contraceptive pills.

    But even if we presume some of the women in our study were using forms of contraception not listed on the PBS, we’re still left with a significant portion without evidence of contraception.

    What are the solutions?

    Other countries such as the United States and countries in Europe have pregnancy prevention programs for women taking oral retinoids. These programs include contraception requirements, risk acknowledgement forms and regular pregnancy tests. Despite these programs, unintended pregnancies among women using oral retinoids still occur in these countries.

    But Australia has no official strategy for preventing pregnancies exposed to oral retinoids. Currently oral retinoids are prescribed by dermatologists, and most contraception is prescribed by GPs. Women therefore need to see two different doctors, which adds costs and burden.

    Hands holding a contraceptive pill packet.
    Preventing pregnancy during oral retinoid treatment is essential. Krakenimages.com/Shutterstock

    Rather than a single fix, there are likely to be multiple solutions to this problem. Some dermatologists may not feel confident discussing sex or contraception with patients, so educating dermatologists about contraception is important. Education for women is equally important.

    A clinical pathway is needed for reproductive-aged women to obtain both oral retinoids and effective contraception. Options may include GPs prescribing both medications, or dermatologists only prescribing oral retinoids when there’s a contraception plan already in place.

    Some women may initially not be sexually active, but change their sexual behaviour while taking oral retinoids, so constant reminders and education are likely to be required.

    Further, contraception access needs to be improved in Australia. Teenagers and young women in particular face barriers to accessing contraception, including costs, stigma and lack of knowledge.

    Many doctors and women are doing the right thing. But every woman should have an effective contraception plan in place well before starting oral retinoids. Only if this happens can we reduce unintended pregnancies among women taking these medicines, and thereby reduce the risk of harm to unborn babies.

    Dr Laura Gerhardy from NSW Health contributed to this article.

    Antonia Shand, Research Fellow, Obstetrician, University of Sydney and Natasha Nassar, Professor of Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology and Chair in Translational Childhood Medicine, University of Sydney

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

  • Red Lentils vs Oats – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing red lentils to oats, we picked the oats.

    Why?

    In terms of macros, oats have more protein, carbs, fiber, and even a little fat—mostly healthy mono- and polyunsaturated fats, thus making them the more nutritionally dense. That said, red lentils have the lower glycemic index, (low GI compared to oats’ medium GI) which offsets that, so we’ll call this category a tie.

    In the category of vitamins, red lentils have more of vitamins B6, B9, and choline, while oats have more of vitamins B1, B2, and B5. Another tie!

    When it comes to minerals, however, we have a tiebreaker category: red lentils have more selenium, while oats have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. An easy win for oats this time!

    So, thanks to the minerals, oats are the clear winner in total. But by all means, enjoy either or both; diversity is good!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    The Best Kind Of Fiber For Overall Health? ← it’s β-glucan, the kind find in oats!

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Cool As A Cucumber
  • The Daily Stoic – by Ryan Holiday & Stephen Hanselman

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    What’s this, a philosophy book in a health and productivity newsletter? Well, look at it this way: Aristotle basically wrote the “How To Win Friends And Influence People” of his day, and Plato before him wrote a book about management.

    In this (chiefly modern!) book, we see what the later Stoic philosophers had to say about getting the most out of life—which is also what we’re about, here at 10almonds!

    We tend to use the word “stoic” in modern English to refer to a person who is resolute in the face of hardship. The traditional meaning does encompass that, but also means a lot more: a whole, rounded, philosophy of life.

    Philosophy in general is not an easy thing into which to “dip one’s toe”. No matter where we try to start, it seems, it turns out there were a thousand other things we needed to read first!

    This book really gets around that. The format is:

    • There’s a theme for each month
    • Each month has one lesson per day
    • Each daily lesson starts with some words from a renowned stoic philosopher, and then provides commentary on such
    • The commentary provides a jumping-off point and serves as a prompt to actually, genuinely, reflect and apply the ideas.

    Unlike a lot of “a year of…” day-by-day books, this is not light reading, by the way, and you are getting a weighty tome for your money.

    But, the page-length daily lessons are indeed digestible—which, again, is what we like at 10almonds!

    Get your copy of The Daily Stoic at Amazon today!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Tahini vs Hummus – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing tahini to hummus, we picked the tahini.

    Why?

    Both are great! But tahini is so nutritionally dense, that it makes even the wonder food that is hummus look bad next to it.

    In terms of macros, tahini is higher in everything except water. So, higher in protein, carbs, fats, and fiber. In terms of those fats, the fat breakdown is similar for both, being mostly polyunsaturated and monounsaturated, with a small percentage of saturated. Tahini has the lower glycemic index, but both are so low that it makes no practical difference.

    In terms of vitamins, tahini has more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B9, E, and choline, while hummus is higher in vitamin B6.

    This is a good reason to embellish hummus with some red pepper (vitamin A), a dash of lemon (vitamin C), etc, but we’re judging these foods in their most simple states, for fairness.

    When it comes to minerals, tahini has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc. Meanwhile, hummus is higher in sodium.

    Note: hummus is a good source of all those minerals too! Tahini just has more.

    In short… Enjoy both, but tahini is the more nutritionally dense by far. On the other hand, if for whatever reason you’re looking for something lower in carbs, fats, and calories, then hummus is where it’s at.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • The Diet Compass – by Bas Kast

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Facts about nutrition and health can be hard to memorize. There’s just so much! And often there are so many studies, and while the science is not usually contradictory, pop-science headlines sure can be. What to believe?

    Bas Kast brings us a very comprehensive and easily digestible solution.

    A science journalist himself, he has gone through the studies so that you don’t have to, and—citing them along the way—draws out the salient points and conclusions.

    But, he’s not just handing out directions (though he does that too); he’s arranged and formatted the information in a very readable and logical fashion. Chapter by chapter, we learn the foundations of important principles for “this is better than that” choices in diet.

    Most importantly, he lays out for us his “12 simple rules for healthy eating“, and they are indeed as simple as they are well-grounded in good science.

    Bottom line: if you want “one easy-reading book” to just tell you how to make decisions about your diet, simply follow those rules and enjoy the benefits… Then this book is exactly that.

    Click here to check out The Diet Compass and get your diet on the right track!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: