New Diet Coke research shows why I am right about almost everything

My previous tongue-in-cheek post on Diet Coke produced a startling response from readers of Comment Central with intense feelings on the subject. I was rather taken aback.

And now this.

Researchers at Purdue University have concluded that:

by breaking the connection between a sweet sensation and high-calorie food, the use of saccharine changes the body’s ability to regulate how many calories it consumes.

“The data clearly indicate that consuming a food sweetened with no-calorie saccharine can lead to greater body-weight gain and adiposity than would consuming the same food sweetened with a higher-calorie sugar.”

Given how much Diet Coke I drink, you might have thought this would rock my world.

But far from it. I think this is the strongest confirmation that I am right, not just about DC but about, well, almost everything.

You see, I hold the strong view that people risk compensate.

Prevent them smoking in one place and they do it somewhere else. Force people to wear safety belts and they drive faster, killing people outside the car. And so on.

The theory is explained well in Professor John Adams' book Risk.

Risk compensation is a strong argument against trying to regulate things using law.

This new research suggests that we compensate even at the basic biological level. If we do this with Diet Coke, it is quite likely that we compensate in a similar way for all diet foods, giving at least one reason why diets don't work.

I am not at all surprised to hear this news about DC. It's why I am so sceptical about regulation of all kinds.

Comments

[adam]

How many cans did you have before you wrote that!

There's a difference between a diet food and a diet, you know. And if you're so sceptical about regulation, why allow Diet Coke to 'regulate' your calorie intake?

[Jonathan]

How does the biological process as described in this study actually prove your psychological theory (which, by the by, is supported by examples that are flatout bad for your point). For more analysis on this: http://airingofthegrievances.blogspot.com/2008/02/hes-outdone-himself-i-mean-hes-really.html

[mike]

By the same token, having anything with an increased sugar content of above the norm for the product, has the same outcome.

In other words you put pure sugar into your diet coke and you will still have overloaded your senses, when it comes to regulation of your diet by taste.

[Carlo Seghezzi]

There is also a reversed "PLACEBO EFFECT" that works in a similar way.

You start to firmly BELEVE that natural sugar is bad for you, and you start to put weight on.
I don't beleve that sugar is bad, in fact I am using regulary sugar in my food 'nd drinks and I am not overweight.
And by the way, Diet Coke taste s..t!