Bulgogi-esque Grilled Ribeye

This did smoke; use the exhaust fan if you have one.

Quick, Easy, Kind of Korean

It may be grilling season, but sometimes it still seems a little too time-consuming or wasteful to fire up the outdoor grill when you’re cooking for one or two people. For nights when I just want dinner to happen quickly, but I also want it to have char marks and smoke, I’m loving our new slab of cast iron. It’s smooth on one side—good for pancakes and eggs—and ribbed for your charring pleasure on the other, as you can see above.

I grabbed this recipe off Slashfood for something reminiscent of bulgogi. Standard Asian marinade—soy sauce, rice vinegar, ginger, garlic, sesame oil, sugar, black pepper, green onion. Hard to go wrong there. I might add some red pepper flakes next time. And then, instead of having a butcher cut the steak into thin strips or freezing and then cutting the steak, I just bought a 1-lb ribeye, marinated and grilled it whole and sliced it after resting.

the thinner end turned out about Medium the thicker end was Medium Rare, verging on Rare

I turned the burners up as high as they’d go about 10 minutes before cooking and cooked the steak for 5 minutes on each side, accompanied by thick slices of onion that had also been marinated. Then I rested the meat for 5 minutes before slicing it against the grain. We ate the meat and onions together, wrapped in romaine leaves with Sriracha. Totally inauthentic. Totally delicious.

I know--wrong kind of lettuce, wrong kind of hot sauce, wrong way to do the meat. Whatever, it tasted awesome.

Recipe: Bulgogi-ish Ribeye (adapted from Slashfood)

Ingredients

  • a steak or two—something like ribeye or flank steak (you probably want about 8 oz per person, scale up the marinade if cooking for more than 4 people)
  • one large white or yellow onion
  • optional garnishes: lettuce leaves, hot sauce, steamed rice and pickled things

For marinade:

  • 1/4 cup soy sauce
  • 2 Tablespoons sesame oil
  • 1 Tablespoon rice wine vinegar
  • 1 Tablespoon sugar
  • a thumb-sized knob of ginger, peeled and minced
  • 4-5 cloves of garlic, minced
  • one green onion, minced
  • a pinch of black pepper
  • 1/2 teaspoon red pepper flakes, cayenne powder, or Sriracha (optional)

Method

1. Whisk together the marinade ingredients and pour the mixture into a zip-top bag or other container large enough to accommodate the meat. Slice the large onion thickly and place the steak and onion slices in the marinade. Toss and turn or shake to cover and let sit for at least 30 minutes or refrigerate up to 8 hours or overnight.

2. Get your grill or broiler hot. Put the steak and onions on and let cook for 5 minutes. Turn both the steak and onion slices once and cook 5 minutes more on the other side. For a typical cut, that will turn out mostly medium rare (or, for uneven thickness, a range between medium and rare). Cook more or less if you like it more or less done. For thicker cuts, cook to 125 F in the middle for rare, 130 F for medium rare, 140 F for medium, 150 F for medium well, and 160 F for well). Or use the finger test.

3. Let the steak rest for 5 minutes, and then slice thinly against the grain.

4. Serve with garnishes.

Diet Soda Follow-up: Are Diet Sodas Better For You Than Regular Soda?

Artificial sweeteners definitely pre-dated the "obesity epidemic." Saccharin was being used commercially in the early 20th C. and diet sodas were widely available by the 1960s For more on the history of artificial sweeteners, see Carolyn de la Pena's brilliant book _Empty Pleasures_

Soda cans from the 1970s from Found in Mom’s Basement

In response to the recent entry about the association between diet soda and fatness, Jim asked:

Has anyone proved that drinking Diet Soda is better for you than drinking Regular Soda? Does Diet Soda have the same impact on the body as drinking say a glass of water? I haven’t done any research on it and I don’t know if any is out there. I’d really like to see a study of what happens to obese people who stop drinking diet soda and switch to regular.

There’s a ton of research on artificial sweeteners, but I can’t find any studies in which obese people who habitually consume artificially sweetened-drinks were made to switch to sugar-sweetened drinks. That might partially due to ethical/IRB concerns—it’s possible that asking people to consume more sugar than they were previously would be considered a significant health risk. On the other hand, there are studies in which subjects are randomly assigned to consume either artificial or caloric sweeteners, so maybe consuming regular soda falls into the realm of acceptable risk with informed consent.

In those kinds of studies, both “overweight” and “healthy”* individuals who consume regular sweeteners (usually sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup, which are nutritionally equivalent as far as we know) end up eating more calories overall than people who consume “diet,” artificially sweetened foods and drinks. The sugar/hfcs groups also gain weight and fat mass and have negative health indicators like increased blood pressure. I don’t think fatness is bad or that being thin is better, but based on the current available evidence, regular soda appears to be both more likely to make you fat and also worse for your health than diet soda.

*Stupid current labels for BMI categories that don’t correspond at all to actual health outcomes.(1)

A Closer Look at the Studies

This is apparently what Diet Coke looks like in Denmark. Or did in 2009. Pretty! In a 2002 study from Denmark, 41 “overweight” men and women between 21 and 50 years old were assigned to two groups, matched for sex, age, weight, height, BMI, fat mass, fat-free mass and usual amount of physical activity. One group was given sucrose-sweetened dietary supplements (2 g/kg of body weight daily; 70% from drinks and 30% from solid foods) and the other was given artificially-sweetened dietary supplements (an equivalent amount of food and drink by weight sweetened with a combination of aspartame, acesulfame, cyclamate, and saccharin, collectively and individually far below intake levels generally regarded as safe). All the supplements were commercially-available foods and included soft drinks, flavored fruit juices, yogurt, marmalade, and stewed fruits. The researchers note that “great efforts were made before the intervention to find the most palatable artificially sweetened food products on the market for which a matching sucrose-containing product existed.” As some of the artificially-sweetened foods were also fat-reduced, subjects in the sweetener group were given additional butter or corn oil every week.

The study lasted 10 weeks. In addition to the supplements, subjects were free to consume whatever they wanted and as much as they wanted. The subjects visited the lab weekly to pick up the supplements and have urine samples taken (which were used to validate their dietary records). Their height, weight, and fat mass were measured every two weeks. They also kept food diaries that included ratings of their  hunger, fullness, the palatability of the food they ate, and their sense of well-being over the course of each day in the week before the study began, the fifth week, and the tenth week.

Results: The sucrose group ate more calories overall than the sweetener group and got more of their calories from carbohydrates (58% compared to 44%). Both groups decreased how many carbohydrates they were eating in addition to the supplements, but the sugar in the supplements more than made up for the decrease in the sucrose group. The sucrose group gained an average of 3.5 pounds—which was, interestingly, only about half the weight gain that would have been predicted based on how many more calories they were eating. Their activity levels didn’t increase, so the most likely explanation is thermogenesis—i.e. their metabolism changed in response to the increased caloric intake. The group eating artificial sweeteners lost an average of two pounds. In the sucrose group, systolic and diastolic blood pressure increased; in the sweetener group, it decreased. There were no differences in appetite sensations, hunger, or satiety.

Similarly, in a 1990 study done at the Monnell Chemical Sense Center, a group of 30 subjects gained weight during a three-week period when they were given regular soda (sweetened with HFCS) and lost or maintained their weight during the two three-week periods when they were given diet soda (aspartame-sweetened) or no soda. In the regular and diet soda periods of the experiment, they were given 40 oz. of soda to drink every day. In the no soda period, they were told they could consume any beverages as they normally would. They also kept detailed dietary records for the duration of the experiment. The order of the 3-week periods was counterbalanced so some of them got regular soda first, some of them got the artificial stuff first, some of them had no soda for the first three weeks, etc. Here’s what the aggregate changes in their body weight looked like: 

Tordoff and Alleva 1990 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 51: 963-9 (graph appears on 965)

During both the regular and diet soda weeks, they decreased their dietary sugar consumption by an average of 33% (i.e. aside from the sugar in the soda).

Studies like these also point to what I suspect is the more likely explanation why there’s never been a study like the one Jim describes: there’s just not much debate about whether consuming calorically-sweetened drinks leads to weight gain and possible health risks (which shouldn’t be conflated—weight gain is primarily an aesthetic issue, and high levels of sugar consumption may lead to negative health outcomes whether or not they make you fat). What is up for debate is whether artificial sweeteners are a good substitute and likely to promote weight loss or also bad and contributing somehow to weight gain. And if they’re contributing to weight gain, how and how much?

There appear to be three types of theories about why artificial sweeteners might cause weight gain and/or other undesirable outcomes.

Theory #1: Artificial sweeteners might have direct metabolic effects

I don't know what this has to do with anything, I just thought the entry needed more picturesIt’s possible that although they have no caloric value, artificial sweeteners could affect blood sugar or insulin in ways that cause the body to store fat. This is the theory being tested in the study described in the previous entry in which mice consuming aspartame in amounts comparable to an average-sized woman drinking 20 oz of aspartame-sweetened soda per day had higher fasting glucose levels than mice on the same diet minus the aspartame. The effect could be chemical, but seems more likely to be an effect of the sweet taste—i.e. the perception of sweetness might affect the hormones that govern appetite and metabolic rate.

Evidence for this is still extremely scant. Not only is it unclear whether or not the effect is reliable, biologically significant, or occurs in humans; it’s also unclear if it’s specific to aspartame or an effect of all artificial sweeteners, if it scales such that a small amount of aspartame causes a smaller increase in fasting glucose or only occurs at a certain critical level of aspartame consumption, if it only occurs after regular daily consumption over a long period of time or after a single dose, if it affects all people in the same way or only “overweight” people, if it interacts with other dietary conditions (i.e. does it only happen in conjunction with diets high in corn oil, like the ones the mice in the study were fed?), etc.

There are studies involving rats that suggest some kind of metabolic effect of artificial sweeteners might promote weight gain. Rats fed artificially-sweetened yogurt consume more calories than those fed sugar-sweetened yogurt.

However, it seems like it might not work the same in people—or at least that the effect might be smaller. Note that in both of the studies described above, subjects given artificial sweeteners decreased both their overall carbohydrate and dietary sugar intake. Additionally, in a 2001 study done at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, 31 subjects (19 lean, 12 obese) were given sucrose (493 kcal), aspartame (290 kcal), or stevia-sweetened (290 kcal) "preloads" before lunch and dinner on three separate days. Their food intake, satiety (how full they felt), and postprandial (after-meal) glucose and insulin levels were measured. When they had the lower-calorie, artificially-sweetened preloads, they did not compensate by eating more at either the subsequent meals and reported similar levels of satiety as they did on the day they consumed the higher-calorie, sucrose preload.

Theory #2: Artificial sweeteners might have a psychological effect.

Another possibility is that drinking “diet” soda might make people believe that they can afford to eat more or nutritionally worse foods. This is similar to the “health halo” research being done by Brian Wansink and others, which has shown that people are more likely to underestimate the caloric content of foods they perceive as “healthy,” like a turkey sandwich from Subway, than they are with foods they perceive as unhealthy, like a Big Mac. They’re also more likely to order sides with the “healthy” choice that ultimately push the calorie content of the meals higher. Organic and “trans-fat free” labels or even just having calorie counts posted on a menu can have similar effects—triggering people’s dietary conscientiousness seems to cause many people to “treat” themselves to something extra.

However, it’s not clear that the “halo” affect actually influences total or long-term consumption. Thinking they’re getting the “healthier” sandwich may make people more likely to eat a bag of chips at that meal than they would have if they’d eaten a burger, but if that means they’re less likely to have an afternoon snack or they eat less at dinner, it might not affect their weight. I can’t find any studies that measure that.

Theory #3: Artificial sweeteners might change people’s palates

Artificial sweeteners might make people more accustomed to sweetness, which might cause them to eat more sweet things or sweeter things than they would otherwise. Since sweet things and the taste for them are seen as a kind of indulgence and not liking or eating sweet things is often constructed as proof of maturity, masculinity, or self-control, this is often described in morally judgmental terms like “infantilizing our taste sense” or “corrupting the palate.” But it’s not a theory entirely confined to blowhards. In an opinion piece in JAMA published in 2009, David S. Ludwig writes:

Individuals who habitually consume artificial sweeteners may find more satiating but less intensely sweet foods (eg, fruit) less appealing and unsweet foods (eg, vegetables, legumes) less palatable, reducing overall diet quality in ways that might contribute to excessive weight gain.

However, he admits that there’s no research showing this to be true. On the contrary, at least one study has found that people who consume artificial sweeteners regularly are more likely to eat foods generally considered to be healthy and less likely to consume foods generally considered to be fattening. According to a 2006 study done by the American Cancer Society as part of a larger project involving 1-2 million men and women who weigh 40% or more above average for their age and height, those who reported using artificial sweeteners also ate chicken, fish and vegetables significantly more often than non-users and consumed beef, butter, white bread, potatoes, ice cream and chocolate significantly less often. That study also found that artificial sweeteners were associated with weight gain. Given that their diets were apparently “healthier,” the authors conclude: “our weight change results are not explicable by differences in food consumption patterns,” perhaps implying that artificial sweetener might indeed be the culprit.

I think their data suggest something different entirely: people who drink diet soda are more likely to be dieters. They’re eating more of the stuff everyone tells them they ought to be eating to lose weight, and less of the stuff they’re supposed to avoid. It’s not working, and they’re getting fatter anyway, but that doesn’t mean diet soda makes you fat, it could simply mean that dieting doesn’t work.

Not Implausible, Just Not Supported By the Evidence

My suspicion is that if diet soda has any affect on weight, it’s a small one. I think it might be possible that in large amounts (probably 16 oz or more of diet soda per day), some artificial sweeteners might affect the metabolism slightly and lead to people being slightly fatter than they would be if they consumed less or no artificial sweeteners at all. However, I don’t think you’d see the results you see in studies like the ones from Denmark or the Monnell Chemical Sense Center if artificial sweeteners really have a dramatic, immediate effect on weight gain or fat storage.

Of course, that doesn’t mean artificial sweeteners are healthy, just that they probably don’t make you fat. Jury’s still out on the relationships between aspartame and cancer, sucralose (Splenda) and intestinal bacteria, saccharine and neurological function (especially in children), and stevia & its derivatives and DNA mutation. But for what it’s worth, most of the review articles I came across and Ludwig’s JAMA article claimed that concerns about cancer have basically been put to rest.

Of course, there’s still the problem of how they all taste

(1) Broken record footnote: Weight is a poor indicator of health. People in the BMI categories labeled “overweight” and “obese” people are often as healthy or healthier than people in the “healthy” or “normal” BMI category. People in the “overweight” category live longer on average than people in the “normal” or “healthy” category. People who are “overweight” or “obese” who engage in regular physical activity are healthier on basically every measure than sedentary “normal” or “healthy” weight people. The people who are really (statistically) screwed are the “underweight.”

Sourdough-risen Buns for Patties or Tubes

I assume fried onions would work about as well as fried shallots, but I've never tried because when you have fried shallots on hand, why would you ever buy fried onions?

Grill, Baby, Grill

Here’s to summer. To putting meat and meat-analogs on metal grates over fire until they have dark, charred lines and taste like smoke and sunburn. To cold lager beer and fresh berries and the smell of tomato vines. To small talk with neighbors over fences and sprinklers and not-small talk with friends over meals cooked and eaten outside. Get it while you can.

Twisting less crucial for tubes, I think. Still fun, though.

You can use just about any bread recipe for buns—just shape the dough into balls or logs and bake them for slightly less time than you would a whole loaf. But in case you’re looking for some additional tips or inspiration, here’s how I like to do it:

Buttery, Half-Whole Wheat, Twisty, and Topped with Shallots

I use a recipe pretty similar to the one I use for challah or dinner rolls, meaning it has a fairly high fat content and some egg in the dough, both of which make the rolls soft and rich (although not quite as buttery and decadent as brioche). I use about 1/2 whole wheat and 1/2 white flour so they have some wholesomeness and chew but still come out light and fluffy. I use milk or whey instead of water if I have either on hand—again for more softness and richness.

I'm not super precious about the shaping--you could probably make them much prettier if you were so inclined.For shaping, I divide the dough into balls the size of lemons and then divide each portion in half, roll those pieces into thin ropes and twist them together. For patties, I make the twist into a circle with one end tucked into the center on the bottom and one tucked into the center on the top. This is not just for aesthetics—it prevents the rolls from being overly thick in the middle. Because there are few things more disappointing in the burgers & brats realm than getting a bite that’s so bready you don’t taste the meat (or whatever else your patty/tube is composed of).

I brush them with an egg wash before baking so they get just a little glossy and brown and to help the toppings stick. My very favorite topping is crispy fried shallots, but sesame seeds or poppy seeds are pretty good, too.

Suggested Uses

Honestly, I prefer most burgers and sausages without a bun. A black bean burger topped with guacamole and tomato slices and a sunny side-up egg is probably one of my favorite meals, but I’d rather eat it with a knife and fork than sandwiched between two pieces of bread, no matter how good the bread is. However, if I had any room left in my belly after that, I might eat one of these for dessert—sliced in half, toasted lightly on the grill, brushed with some butter or mayonnaise or whatever else you got out for the corn on the cob and a sprinkle of salt. And they’re also a great vehicle for saucy braised meats like pulled pork or sloppy joes and summery sandwich fillings like egg salad or grilled veggies and cheese with pesto.

If they touch while baking, you can easily pull them apart. No big deal.

Recipe: Sourdough-risen Buns (makes about 20 buns)

Ingredients:

  • 2 cups refreshed sourdough starter (1:1 flour: water)*
  • 1 cup milk, whey, or water 
  • 1/4 cup neutral-flavored oil or melted butter
  • 1 egg + 1 egg yolk in dough; 1 egg for brushing
  • 1/2 cup sugar (or other sweetener)
  • 2 teaspoons kosher salt
  • 5-6 cups flour (any combination of white, whole wheat, or multigrain; if using a low-gluten flour like rye add 2 T. vital wheat gluten per cup)
  • optional: sesame seeds, poppy seeds, fried shallots (or onions or garlic), grated hard cheeses, chopped sundried tomatoes, etc.

*If you want to substitute packaged yeast for the sourdough starter, increase the liquid to 2 1/2 cups and increase flour to 6 1/2-7 cups. Heat the liquid to 110-120F and whisk in 2 packages (4 1/2 teaspoons) active dry yeast and 2 Tablespoons of the sugar. Let sit 10-15 minutes before combining with the remaining ingredients.

Method:

1. In a large bowl, whisk together the starter, liquid, oil or butter, and egg.

2. Add the sugar, salt, and half of the flour and stir until the mixture begins to pull away from the sides of the bowl and form a dough. Gradually add as much of the remaining flour as needed until the dough becomes too stiff to stir.

dry ingredients added to the wet just starting to knead--a little scrappy and sticky

3. Dust a clean surface with flour and scrape the dough onto it. Begin to knead, adding flour as necessary to prevent the dough from sticking to you. You want to add just enough flour to make the dough workable. If desired, cover the dough with the mixing bowl set upside down and let it rest for 15 minutes to let the flour absorb more of the moisture—that should make it less sticky and easier to knead.

4. Knead for 10-15 minutes, or until you feel like stopping. You don’t the kind of gluten networks that will form a baker’s windowpane for this kind of bread, but kneading it that long or longer wouldn’t hurt anything. The less you knead, the more uneven the crumb will be (you might see a variety of large and small air bubbles in the rolls); the more you knead, the more even it will be.

5. Coat the mixing bowl lightly with oil, place the dough inside and turn so the whole surface is oiled. Cover and let rise 4+ hours or until doubled in size (1-2 hours for active dry or instant yeast). If you want a more pronounced sourdough flavor, let it rise for 8+ hours and/or after rising, put it in a zip-top bag and let it sit in the refrigerator for 24-72 hours before shaping and baking.

kneaded, oiled, ready to rise after an overnight rise--the sugar in the dough makes the yeast go a little crazy but there's no such thing as "over-risen" for the first rise. let it go as long as you want.

6. Punch the risen dough down in the middle and let rest 15 minutes. For regular-sized buns, pinch off balls about the size of a medium lemon or divide into 20 equal pieces (should be about 3.2 oz/90 g each). For smaller, slider-sized buns, pinch off balls about the size of a golf ball or divide into 36 pieces (around 1.75 oz/50 g).

For regular burger buns: shape each piece into a smooth ball,flatten until about 3/4 inches thick.

For hot-dog buns: rolls into a rope about 3/4 inch thick and 8” long. Slash once down the center or 2-3 times diagonally before baking, if desired

For twisty buns: divide each portion into 2 or 3 equal pieces, shape each piece into a rope about 8” long and twist or braid them and pinch the ends together. For kaiser rolls, make the twist into a circle and pinch the ends underneath.

Let rise again until doubled or almost the desired finished size, 2+ hours (30 min-1 hr if using active dry or instant yeast)

egg washed, topped, ready for the oven

7. Preheat the oven to 375F 30 minutes before baking. Whisk an egg with about 1 Tablespoon of water or milk and brush the tops of the buns. Just before baking, brush with the egg wash again and sprinkle with toppings.

8. Bake 15 to 20 minutes or until tops are beginning to brown and the internal temperature is between 190-200F.

Diet Soda…Probably Not the Cause of the “Obesity Epidemic”

IN SHOCKING REVERSAL, NATION’S SCIENTISTS DECLARE THAT CORRELATION DOES, IN FACT, PROVE CAUSATION!

A couple of studies on artificial sweeteners presented at the American Diabetic Association’s Scientific Sessions in San Diego last week are being hailed as new evidence that diet soda can make you fat. For example, under the headline “2 New Studies: Diet Soda Leads to Weight Gain,” the blog Fooducate declares:

Not only will diet soda NOT help you lose weight, it may actually cause weight gain and diabetes!

image

Study #1 tracked the waist circumference and diet soda consumption of 474 people between the ages of 65 and 74 over an average of 3.5 years. In general, everyone got fatter between their baseline and follow-up appointments, but diet soft drink “users” got 70% fatter than “non-users.” Frequent users (those who consume more than 2 diet sodas per day) got significantly fatter: their waists grew, on average, 500 percent more than non-users.

It appears from this chart that only the difference between the heavy users and non-users was significant at the p<.001 level. The study hasn't been published, so I have no idea how big each of the groups is or whether the other differences are significant at the p<.05 level.

What’s that? A correlation, you say? Why, the only possible explanation is that the variable randomly assigned to the x axis must have caused the differences in the variable plotted on the y-axis! It’s SCIENCE!

CBS News:

Sorry, soda lovers – even diet drinks can make you fat. That’s the word from authors of two new studies, presented Sunday at a meeting of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego.

Business Insider:

Bad News, Your "Diet" Soda Is Making You Fat Too

Time Magazine:

More bad news, diet soda drinkers: data presented recently at the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) Scientific Sessions suggest that diet drinks may actually contribute to weight gain and that the artificial sweeteners in them could potentially contribute Type 2 diabetes.

Because there’s no chance there’s some confounding factor, or that the causal arrow points in the other direction. After all, people who are getting fatter wouldn’t have any reason to be more likely to drink diet soda, would they?

The study’s authors are somewhat more modest about what their research shows:

“These results suggest that, amidst the national drive to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks, policies that would promote the consumption of diet soft drinks may have unintended deleterious effects.”

However, it still seems irresponsible to me that they claim their research shows that diet soft drinks have “effects,” deleterious or otherwise. Correlations are not effects. All they’ve shown is that, in general, people over 65 are more likely to consume “diet” drinks if they are also gaining more weight. Which is not especially surprising, if you think about it.

I wish people who write headlines and story leads like the ones quoted above would have “Correlation =/= causation” tattooed across their foreheads, backwards, so they’d be reminded of it every time they look in the mirror.

Study #2 and more incredulous owls below the jump:

20 MICE WHO ATE ASPARTAME SHOWED SOME POTENTIAL EARLY SIGNS OF DIABETES (MAYBE). ALSO, SIGNS OF DEATH.

Study #2 involved 40 mice, half of whom were fed chow + corn oil and half of whom were fed chow + corn oil + aspartame (6 mg/kg/day, which seems to be approximately equivalent to a 132 lb person drinking 20 oz of aspartame-sweetened soda per day). After three months on the diets, the mice on the aspartame diet had fasting glucose levels 37% higher than the mice only getting chow + oil. The fasting insulin levels in the aspartame-fed mice were also 27% lower, but that wasn’t statistically significant.

I’m not sure how biologically significant 37% higher average fasting glucose is, or what the range for each group was, or whether the aspartame-fed mice went on to develop diabetes. The latter is especially hard to answer because apparently, by 6 months after starting the diet, at 18 months of age, only 50% of the aspartame-fed mice and 65% of the control group mice were still alive—which, the researchers note, was not a statistically significant difference and is apparently about par for the course with mice, whose average lifespan seems to be between 1-2 years.

This study is intriguing, and does offer one possible mechanism by which aspartame could independently cause weight gain—if aspartame consumed in sufficient quantities has a biologically meaningful effect on blood sugar levels, then diet sodas could indeed be causing people to store more fat than they would if they consumed another calorie-free beverage. But this is far from a smoking gun. It’s not clear if all artificial sweeteners have the same effect. Or if it would also occur in mice not eating a high-fat diet. Or if the blood sugar effects only happen above a certain level of aspartame consumption. Or if it works the same in humans. Or if it does lead to diabetes or negative health outcomes or just produces some biological markers of pre-diabetes. And what this study also showed was that rats who eat aspartame are not significantly more likely to die early than rats who don’t eat aspartame.

BUT WAIT I HAVE MORE CORRELATIONS FOR YOU

Fooducate has one more piece of evidence to submit—the clincher, it seems, if you’re still not convinced by those two studies that diet sodas make you fat:

Still sipping away at your Diet Sprite?

Need more evidence that drinking diet soft drinks is bad for you?

Consider this – ever since diet soft drinks were introduced into the market, obesity and diabetes rates in this country have skyrocketed.

image

Consider this—ever since aerobics became a nationwide trend, obesity and diabetes rates in this country have skyrocketed! Consider this—ever since sushi became popular in America, obesity and diabetes rates have skyrocketed! STOP DOING AEROBICS AND EATING SUSHI. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN.