Coca-Cola vs Diet Coke – 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 Coca-Cola to Diet Coke, we picked the Diet Coke.

Why?

While the Diet Coke is bad, the Coca-Cola has mostly the same problems plus sugar.

The sugar in a can of Coca-Cola is 39g high-fructose corn syrup (the worst kind of sugar yet known to humanity), and of course it’s being delivered in liquid form (the most bioavailable way to get, which in this case, is bad).

To put those 39g into perspective, the daily recommended amount of sugar is 36g for men or 25g for women, according to the AHA.

The sweetener in Diet Coke is aspartame, which has had a lot of health risk accusations made against it, most of which have not stood up to scrutiny, and the main risk it does have is “it mimics sugar too well” and it can increase cravings for sweetness, and therefore higher consumption of sugars in other products. For this reason, the World Health Organization has recommended to simply reduce sugar intake without looking to artificial sweeteners to help.

Nevertheless, aspartame has been found safe (in moderate doses; the upper tolerance level would equate to more than 20 cans of diet coke per day) by food safety agencies ranging from the FDA to the EFSA, based on a large body of science.

Other problems that Diet Coke has are present in Coca-Cola too, such as its acidic nature (bad for tooth enamel) and gassy nature (messes with leptin/ghrelin balance).

Summary: the Diet Coke is relatively less unhealthy, but is still bad in numerous ways, and remains best avoided.

Read more:

Don’t Forget…

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

Recommended

  • Cashew Nuts vs Coconut – Which is Healthier?
  • What Grief Does To Your Body (And How To Manage It)
    What Grief Does To The Body (And How To Cope). Losing loved ones is inevitable, but often leaves us unprepared. Grief takes a toll on our mental and physical health. Learn how to manage devastating loss and thrive.

Learn to Age Gracefully

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

  • Alzheimer’s Causative Factors To Avoid

    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 Best Brains Bar Nun?

    This is Dr. David Snowdon. He’s an epidemiologist, and one of the world’s foremost experts on Alzheimer’s disease. He was also, most famously, the lead researcher of what has become known as “The Nun Study”.

    We recently reviewed his book about this study:

    Aging with Grace: What the Nun Study Teaches Us About Leading Longer, Healthier, and More Meaningful Lives – by Dr. David Snowdon

    …which we definitely encourage you to check out, but we’ll do our best to summarize its key points today!

    Reassurance up-front: no, you don’t have to become a nun

    The Nun Study

    In 1991, a large number (678) of nuns were recruited for what was to be (and until now, remains) the largest study of its kind into the impact of a wide variety of factors on aging, and in particular, Alzheimer’s disease.

    Why it was so important: because the nuns were all from the same Order, had the same occupation (it’s a teaching Order), with very similar lifestyles, schedules, socioeconomic status, general background, access to healthcare, similar diets, same relationship status (celibate), same sex (female), and many other factors also similar, this meant that most of the confounding variables that confound other studies were already controlled-for here.

    Enrollment in the study also required consenting to donating one’s brain for study post-mortem—and of those who have since died, indeed 98% of them have been donated (the other 2%, we presume, may have run into technical administrative issues with the donation process, due to the circumstances of death and/or delays in processing the donation).

    How the study was undertaken

    We don’t have enough space to describe the entire methodology here, but the gist of it is:

    • Genetic testing for relevant genetic factors
    • Data gathered about lives so far, including not just medical records but also autobiographies that the nuns wrote when they took their vows (at ages 19–21)
    • Extensive ongoing personal interviews about habits, life choices, and attitudes
    • Yearly evaluations including memory tests and physical function tests
    • Brain donation upon death

    What they found

    Technically, The Nun Study is still ongoing. Of the original 678 nuns (aged 75–106), three are still alive (based on the latest report, at least).

    However, lots of results have already been gained, including…

    Genes

    A year into the study, in 1992, the “apolipoprotein E” (APOE) gene was established as a likely causative factor in Alzheimer’s disease. This is probably not new to our readers in 2024, but there are interesting things being learned even now, for example:

    The Alzheimer’s Gene That Varies By Race & Sex

    …but watch out! Because also:

    Alzheimer’s Sex Differences May Not Be What They Appear

    Words

    Based on the autobiographies written by the nuns in their youth upon taking their vows, there were two factors that were later correlated with not getting dementia:

    • Longer sentences
    • Positive outlook
    • “Idea density”

    That latter item means the relative linguistic density of ideas and complexity thereof, and the fluency and vivacity with which they were expressed (this was not a wishy-washy assessment; there was a hard-science analysis to determine numbers).

    Want to spruce up yours? You might like to check out:

    Reading, Better: Reading As A Cognitive Exercise

    …for specific, evidence-based ways to tweak your reading to fight cognitive decline.

    Food

    While the dietary habits of the nuns were fairly homogenous, those who favored eating more and cooked greens, beans, and tomatoes, lived longer and with healthier brains.

    See also: Brain Food? The Eyes Have It!

    Other aspects of brain health & mental health

    The study also found that nuns who avoided stroke and depression, were also less likely to get dementia.

    For tending to these, check out:

    Community & Faith

    Obviously, in this matter the nuns were quite a homogenous group, scoring heavily in community and faith. What’s relevant here is the difference between the nuns, and other epidemiological studies in other groups (invariably not scoring so highly).

    Community & faith are considered, separately and together, to be protective factors against dementia.

    Faith may be something that “you have it or you don’t” (we’re a health science newsletter, not a theological publication, but for the interested, philosopher John Stuart Mill’s 1859 essay “On Liberty“ makes a good argument for it not being something one can choose, prompting him to argue for religious tolerance, on the grounds that religious coercion is a futile effort precisely because a person cannot choose to dis/believe something)

    …but community can definitely be chosen, nurtured, and grown. We’ve written about this a bit before:

    You might also like to check out this great book on the topic:

    Purpose: Design A Community And Change Your Life – by Gina Bianchini

    Want more?

    We gave a ground-up primer on avoiding Alzheimer’s and other dementias; check it out:

    How To Reduce Your Alzheimer’s Risk

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Three Daily Servings of Beans?

    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.

    It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

    Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!

    In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

    As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

    So, no question/request too big or small

    ❝Not crazy about the Dr.s food advice. Beans 3X a day?❞

    For reference, this is in response to our recent article on the topic of 12 things to aim to get a certain amount of each day:

    Dr. Greger’s Daily Dozen

    So, there are a couple of things to look at here:

    Firstly, don’t worry, it’s a guideline and an aim. If you don’t hit it on a given day, there is always tomorrow. It’s just good to know what one is aiming for, because without knowing that, achieving it will be a lot less likely!

    Secondly, the beans/legumes/pulses category says three servings, but the example serving sizes are quite small, e.g. ½ cup cooked beans, or ¼ cup hummus. And also as you notice, dips/pastes/sauces made from beans count too. So given the portion sizes, you could easily get two servings in by breakfast (and two servings of whole grains, too) if you enjoy frijoles refritos, for example. Many of the recipes we share on this site have “stealth” beans/legumes/pulses in this fashion

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Non-Alcohol Mouthwash vs Alcohol Mouthwash – 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 non-alcohol mouthwash to alcohol mouthwash, we picked the alcohol.

    Why?

    Note: this is a contingent choice and is applicable to most, but not all, people.

    In short, there has been some concern about alcohol mouthwashes increasing cancer risk, but research has shown this is only the case if you already have an increased risk of oral cancer (for example if you smoke, and/or have had an oral cancer before).

    For those for whom this is not the case (for example, if you don’t smoke, and/or have no such cancer history), then best science currently shows that alcohol mouthwash does not cause any increased risk.

    What about non-alcohol mouthwashes? Well, they have a different problem; they usually use chlorine-based chemicals like chlorhexidine or cetylpyridinium chloride, which are (exactly as the label promises) exceptionally good at killing oral bacteria.

    (They’d kill us too, at higher doses, hence: swill and spit)

    Unfortunately, much like the rest of our body, our mouth is supposed to have bacteria there and bad things happen when it doesn’t. In the case of our oral microbiome, cleaning it with such powerful antibacterial agents can kill our “good” bacteria along with the bad, which lowers the pH of our saliva (that’s bad; it means it is more acidic), and thus indirectly erodes tooth enamel.

    You can read more about the science of all of the above (with references), here:

    Toothpastes & Mouthwashes: Which Help And Which Harm?

    Summary:

    For most people, alcohol mouthwashes are a good way to avoid the damage that can be done by chlorhexidine in non-alcohol mouthwashes.

    Here are some examples, but there will be plenty in your local supermarket:

    Non-Alcohol, by Colgate | Alcohol, by Listerine

    If you have had oral cancer, or if you smoke, then you may want to seek a third alternative (and also, please, stop smoking if you can).

    Or, really, most people could probably skip mouthwashes, if you’ve good oral care already by other means. See also:

    Toothpastes & Mouthwashes: Which Help And Which Harm?

    (yes, it’s the same link as before, but we’re now drawing your attention to the fact it has information about toothpastes too)

    If you do want other options though, might want to check out:

    Less Common Oral Hygiene Options ← miswak sticks are especially effective

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Cashew Nuts vs Coconut – Which is Healthier?
  • Signs Of Low Estrogen In Women: What Your Skin, Hair, & Nails Are Trying To Tell You

    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.

    Skin, hair, and nails are often thought of purely as a beauty thing, but in fact they can be indicative of a lot of other aspects of health. Dr. Andrea Suarez takes us through some of them in this video about the systemic (i.e., whole-body, not just related to sex things) effects of estrogen, and/or a deficiency thereof.

    Beyond the cosmetic

    Low estrogen levels are usual in women during and after untreated menopause, resulting in various changes in the skin, hair, and nails, that reflect deeper issues, down to bone health, heart health, brain health, and more. Since we can’t see our bones or hearts or brains without scans (or a serious accident/incident), we’re going to focus on the outward signs of estrogen deficiency.

    Estrogen helps maintain healthy collagen production, skin elasticity, wound healing, and moisture retention, making it essential for youthful and resilient skin. Declining estrogen levels with menopause lead to a thinner epidermis, decreased collagen production, and more pronounced wrinkles. Skin elasticity also diminishes, which slows the skin’s ability to recover from stretching or deformation. Wound healing also becomes slower, increasing the risk of infections and extended recovery periods after injuries or surgeries—bearing in mind that collagen is needed in everything from our skin to our internal connective tissue (fascia) and joints and bones. So all those things are going to struggle to recover from injury (and surgery is also an injury) without it.

    Other visible changes associated with declining estrogen include significant dryness as a result of reduced hyaluronic acid and glycosaminoglycan production, which are essential for moisture retention. The skin becomes more prone to irritation and increased water loss. Additionally, estrogen deficiency results in less resistance to oxidative stress, making the skin more susceptible to damage from environmental factors such as UV radiation and pollution, as well as any from-the-inside pollution that some may have depending on diet and lifestyle.

    Acne and enlarged pores are associated with increased testosterone, but testosterone and estrogen are antagonistic in most ways, and in this case a decrease in estrogen will do the same, due increased unopposed androgen signaling affecting the oil glands. The loss of supportive collagen also causes the skin around pores to lose structure, making them appear larger. The reduction in skin hydration further exacerbates the visibility of pores and can contribute to the development of blackheads due to abnormal cell turnover.

    Blood vessel issues tend to arise as estrogen levels drop, leading to a reduction in angiogenesis, i.e. the formation and integrity of blood vessels. This results in more fragile and leaky blood vessels, making the skin more prone to bruising, especially on areas frequently exposed to the sun, such as the backs of the hands. This weakened vasculature also further contributes to the slower wound healing that we talked about, due to less efficient delivery of growth factors.

    Hair and nail changes often accompany estrogen deficiency. Women may notice hair thinning, increased breakage, and a greater likelihood of androgenic alopecia. The texture of the hair can change, becoming more brittle. Similarly, nails can develop ridges, split more easily, and become more fragile due to reduced collagen and keratin production, which also affects the skin around the nails.

    As for what to do about it? Management options for estrogen-deficient skin include:

    • Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which can improve skin elasticity, boost collagen production, and reduce dryness and fragility, as well as addressing the many more serious internal things that are caused by the same deficiency as these outward signs.
    • Low-dose topical estrogen cream, which can help alleviate skin dryness and increase skin strength, won’t give the systemic benefits (incl. to bones, heart, brain, etc) that only systemic HRT can yield.
    • Plant-based phytoestrogens, which are not well-evidenced, but may be better than nothing if nothing is your only other option. However, if you are taking anything other form of estrogen, don’t use phytoestrogens as well, or they will compete for estrogen receptors, and do the job not nearly so well while impeding the bioidentical estrogen from doing its much better job.

    And for all at any age, sunscreen continues to be one of the best things to put on one’s skin for general skin health, and this is even more true if running low on estrogen.

    For more on all of this, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like:

    These Signs Often Mean These Nutrient Deficiencies (Do You Have Any?)

    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:

  • Pasteurization: What It Does And Doesn’t Do

    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.

    Pasteurization’s Effect On Risks & Nutrients

    In Wednesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your health-related opinions of raw (cow’s) milk, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • About 47% said “raw milk is dangerous to consume, whereas pasteurization makes it safer”
    • About 31% said “raw milk is a good source of vital nutrients which pasteurization would destroy”
    • About 14% said “both raw milk and pasteurized milk are equally unhealthy”
    • About 9% said “both raw milk and pasteurized milk are equally healthy”

    Quite polarizing! So, what does the science say?

    “Raw milk is dangerous to consume, whereas pasteurization makes it safer: True or False?”

    True! Coincidentally, the 47% who voted for this are mirrored by the 47% of the general US population in a similar poll, deciding between the options of whether raw milk is less safe to drink (47%), just as safe to drink (15%), safer to drink (9%), or not sure (30%):

    Public Fails to Appreciate Risk of Consuming Raw Milk, Survey Finds

    As for what those risks are, by the way, unpasteurized dairy products are estimated to cause 840x more illness and 45x more hospitalizations than pasteurized products.

    This is because unpasteurized milk can (and often does) contain E. coli, Listeria, Salmonella, Cryptosporidium, and other such unpleasantries, which pasteurization kills.

    Source for both of the above claims:

    Characteristics of U.S. Consumers Reporting Past Year Intake of Raw (Unpasteurized) Milk: Results from the 2016 Food Safety Survey and 2019 Food Safety and Nutrition Survey

    (we know the title sounds vague, but all this information is easily visible in the abstract, specifically, the first two paragraphs)

    Raw milk is a good source of vital nutrients which pasteurization would destroy: True or False?

    False! Whether it’s a “good” source can be debated depending on other factors (e.g., if we considered milk’s inflammatory qualities against its positive nutritional content), but it’s undeniably a rich source. However, pasteurization doesn’t destroy or damage those nutrients.

    Incidentally, in the same survey we linked up top, 16% of the general US public believed that pasteurization destroys nutrients, while 41% were not sure (and 43% knew that it doesn’t).

    Note: for our confidence here, we are skipping over studies published by, for example, dairy farming lobbies and so forth. Those do agree, by the way, but nevertheless we like sources to be as unbiased as possible. The FDA, which is not completely unbiased, has produced a good list of references for this, about half of which we would consider biased, and half unbiased; the clue is generally in the journal names. For example, Food Chemistry and the Journal of Food Science and Journal of Nutrition are probably less biased than the International Dairy Association and the Journal of Dairy Science:

    FDA | Raw Milk Misconceptions and the Danger of Raw Milk Consumption

    this page covers a lot of other myths too, more than we have room to “bust” here, but it’s very interesting reading and we recommend to check it out!

    Notably, we also weren’t able to find any refutation by counterexample on PubMed, with the very slight exception that some studies sometimes found that in the case of milks that were of low quality, pasteurization can reduce the vitamin E content while increasing the vitamin A content. For most milks however, no significant change was found, and in all cases we looked at, B-vitamins were comparable and vitamin D, popularly touted as a benefit of cow’s milk, is actually added later in any case. And, importantly, because this is a common argument, no change in lipid profiles appears to be findable either.

    In science, when something has been well-studied and there aren’t clear refutations by counterexample, and the weight of evidence is clearly very much tipped into one camp, that usually means that camp has it right.

    Milk generally is good/bad for the health: True or False?

    True or False, depending on what we want to look at. It’s definitely not good for inflammation, but the whole it seems to be cancer-neutral and only increases heart disease risk very slightly:

    • Keep Inflammation At Bay ← short version is milk is bad, fermented milk products are fine in moderation
    • Is Dairy Scary? ← short version is that milk is neither good nor terrible; fermented dairy products however are health-positive in numerous ways when consumed in moderation

    You may be wondering…

    …how this goes for the safety of dairy products when it comes to the bird flu currently affecting dairy cows, so:

    Cows’ Milk, Bird Flu, & You

    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:

  • What Your Hands Can Tell You About Your Health

    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.

    Dr. Siobhan Deshauer tells us what our hands say about our health—she’s not practicing palmistry though; she’s a rheumatologist, and everything here is about clinical signs of health/disease.

    The signs include…

    “Spider fingers” (which your writer here has; I always look like I’m ready to cast a spell of some kind), and that’s really the medical name, or arachnodactyly for those who like to get Greek about it. It’s about elongated digits. Elongated other bones too, typically, but the hands are where it’s most noticeable.

    The tests:

    • Make a fist with your thumb inside (the way you were told never to punch); does your thumb poke out the side notably past the edge of your hand, unassisted (i.e., don’t poke it, just let it rest where it goes to naturally)?
    • Take hold of one of your wrists with the fingers of the other hand, wrapping them around. If they reach, that’s normal; if there’s a notable overlap, we’re in Spidey-territory now.

    If both of those are positive results for you, Dr. Deshauer recommends getting a genetic test to see if you have Marfan syndrome, because…

    Arachnodactyly often comes from a genetic condition called Marfan syndrome, and as well as the elongated digits of arachnodactyly, Marfan syndrome affects the elastic fibers of the body, and comes with the trade-off of an increased risk of assorted kinds of sudden death (if something goes “ping” where it shouldn’t, like the heart or lungs).

    But it can also come from Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome!

    EDS is characterized by hypermobility of joints, meaning that they are easily flexed past the normal human limit, and/but also easily dislocated.

    The tests:

    • Put your hand flat on a surface, and using your other hand, see how far back your fingers will bend (without discomfort, please); do they go further than 90°?
    • Can you touch your thumb to your wrist* (on the same side?)

    *She says “wrist”; for this arachnodactylic writer here it’s halfway down my forearm, but you get the idea

    For many people this is a mere quirk and inconvenience, for others it can be more serious and a cause of eventual chronic pain, and for a few, it can be very serious and come with cardiovascular problems (similar to the Marfan syndrome issues above). This latter is usually diagnosed early in life, though, such as when a child comes in with an aneurysm, or there’s a family history of it. Another thing to watch out for!

    Check out the video for more information on these, as well as what our fingerprints can mean, indicators of diabetes (specifically, a test for diabetic cheiroarthropathy that you can do at home, like the tests above), carpal tunnel syndrome, Raynaud phenomenon, and more!

    She covers 10 main medical conditions in total:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to read more?

    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: