[layer8]

> there’s a theory that reacting to that increases absorption, so your body pulls more carbs

There doesn’t seem to be any good studies about that. Anecdotally, as someone who has been drinking 2-3 liters of Diet Coke or Coke Zero daily for over two decades, I haven’t experienced such an effect.

[hinkley]

George Burns smoked cigars into his nineties. He was famous for smoking them while performing.

Anecdotes don’t mean shit for public policy.

And is this even an anecdote? Were you overweight before you started drinking diet and now you’re not, with no other lifestyle changes? Food? Mood? Exercise?

[layer8]

> Anecdotes don’t mean shit for public policy.

Right, and so yours doesn’t either.

My point is, the theory that artificial sweeteners somehow cause more “net” calorie intake doesn’t have much grounded evidence. Presenting it as a likely truth is fallacious.

[hinkley]

That's specious. One is based on a chain of events. The other is based on the absence of a chain of events. Your anecdote and George Burns are of a kind: I did something and nothing bad happened. You've implied that you've proven a negative.

Mine is "I stopped doing something and something good happened (3x)". I did a lot of single variable experiments on myself during that phase of my life. I didn't stop soda and start exercising. I was too 'lazy' for that, but it was more informative.

Anecdotes are lousy for public policy but they're great for research grants. Except for accidental discoveries, most medical advances come from looking at clusters of people or animals or microbes that don't behave the way you thought they would. Those are anecdotes, and the cause-effect variety are much easier to spot.