On 2/2/2015 12:44 PM, Christopher Helms wrote:
> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 4:36:00 PM UTC-6, Julie Bove wrote:
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> After reading this on Time.com
>>>
>>> If you haven't already, you may want to reconsider your diet soda
>>> habit-especially if you're trying to lose weight. A much-buzzed-about
>>> study published in the journal Nature found that non-caloric
>>> sweeteners such as saccharin (Sweet-n-Low), sucralose (Splenda), and
>>> aspartame (Equal) may mess with the gut bacteria that play a key role
>>> in healthy metabolism. Researchers found a link between these
>>> sweeteners, altered gut microbes, glucose intolerance and metabolic
>>> syndrome (both precursors to Type 2 diabetes) in mice and humans.
>>>
>>> I followed the link to this. It's nothing new, but worth repeating.
>>> http://www.health.com/health/gallery...ow-away-012615
>>
>> Not worth repeating at all and mostly just a bunch of hooey.
>
>
> Speaking of diet soda, though, I've got a question that maybe someone here can answer. Nobody at work knows what the deal is, and neither do I. Why is it that the 20 oz. bottle of Diet Mountain Dew that I buy at the little cooler thing lists 10 calories on the bottle, but the 24 oz. bottles of Diet Mountain Dew in the six pack that I buy at Kroger lists 0 calories on the bottle? It's the exact same stuff, presumably. It's not that I'm exactly sweating over 10 calories, but still, more Dew should get at least a couple more calories listed. Not zero, at any rate.
>

My guess is that in the 24 oz bottles, a serving size is portioned @ 8
oz while the 20 oz is supposed to be single serve. Maybe anything less
than 5 oz/serving is considered to be zero. It might also be a different
formulation or maybe the more you drink the less calories you get.
Mountain Dew is a most wonderful, magical, potion. Either that, or it's
the caffeine.