Bill Gates Drinks Diet Coke

Interesting that it holds BRK.B shares rather than BRK.A shares. Is this because the foundation assessed that they would move the market less when buying BRK.B instead of BRK.A?

The principle difference between BRK.A and BRK.B is voting rights. If you don't intend to exercise your voting rights (or don't need to -- if Bill Gates has a concern about how Berkshire Hathaway is being run, you don't think he can just call Warren Buffett up and have a chat?) why would you pay the premium for voting shares?

I'm really disappointed by that. Gates shouldn't be promoting beverages that promote obesity, type 2 diabetes, and tooth decay.

Maybe the money he makes off of their stock is used for more good than the harm that comes from his investment in them.

Why, because aspartame is a \gasp\ chemical? Yes, please disregard the numerous studies that all find aspartame to be completely safe for human consumption. Gates probably drinks Diet Coke for the same reason that many educated people do: they're actually able to read and understand primary sources. Aspartame conspiracy theorists are just as woefully uninformed as anti-vaxxers.

I agree. Not that the FDA is always right, but after the debacle with saccharin they wanted to be sure that aspartame was safe.

Studies that say something is safe are irrelevant, we only care about the studies that say something is not safe and their follow ups.

That leads to confirmation bias, which is a bad thing. You want both positive and negative results.

I can totally see it now! After the study shows us that something is safe the dead people hop out of the grave. Imagine their surprice! Oh, I thought I died but then the new research came in.

What you're saying is that you can tell a police officer that you're innocent 50 times, but if you say that you're guilty even once, it's that one that counts. Cops do that because people make conscious effort to look innocent. However, Nature is not out to deceive you. Nature is not saying to itself, "I'm going to make diet soft drinks look better than they really are". All scientific studies, whether giving positive or negative results, must count.

> I'm shocked that Bill Gates drinks 3-4 Diet Cokes a day. Why? The caffeine, or the fact that it's Coke and not coffee or tea (or ...)? > at least with smoking, there's a chemical dependency at play Diet Coke still contains caffeine (~50mg/can), which is generally considered to also cause physical dependence and withdrawal effects on abrupt cessation[1]. Granted, nicotine withdrawal is a lot worse, but serious caffeine fiends won't have a fun time of it for a few days, and it can be disruptive for several weeks. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine_addiction

I wasn't thinking about caffeine (but if that's the issue, tea or coffee seem like good alternative). I was thinking about the health issues its linked to (kidney problems, type 2 diabetes, dental issues, ...)

It's the aspartame. You can decide for yourself whether it's poison, but it's definitely the reason many people regard diet sodas as such. EDIT, I guess this should have gone on parent. At any rate, latch, I had the exact same reaction. And this is a man with resources. (Indeed, maybe he drinks some secret power soda and just used Diet Coke to give it a plebian air. Maybe such details are even handled by his blogging software.)

Aren't those health problems avoided when drinking diet? Not that it's necessarily super healthy, but I thought sugar was the great enemy here.

I'm not so sure. I'm certainly not an expert, but I have a private theory that the very sweetness of artificial sweeteners influences insulin release via some mechanism. Whether by "crying wolf" and promoting insulin resistance, or by some other means, I suspect there's some kind of message at play - "lots of sugar coming, blood, get ready!" - which then has a deleterious effect even when there's no actual sugar involved. Well, it's not very scientific, but I've arrived at this theory by a couple of observations. One in myself - I used to be a huge diet coke junkie, up to 10 cans a day sometimes, and I found it impossible to lose weight, plus I noticed that I got that "after sugar" feeling somehow from the drink. When I cut it out, plus everything else artificially sweet (I was barely consuming any sugar), my weight loss issues disappeared and I just felt .. much better. The other side of my anecdotal data comes from observing the same thing in friends. I know a few people who have gone pretty heavily low carb to lose weight, and I note a seeming correlation between success and cutting out sweet foods/drinks, no matter if they have sugar or not. OK, it's not exactly a double blind large-scale test, but nonetheless. I'm not the only one I know who thinks this either. A couple of the PTs at my gym have noticed the same thing, and advise their clients to cut everything sweet from their diet, fake sugar or not. And Tim Ferriss advises a maximum of one diet drink a day. So yeah, if you ask me (or the people above) - stay away from diet soft drinks and anything else sweet. I can't point to any large-scale studies, but over the years I've become pretty convinced there's something there.

The reason you can't point to any large scale studies is because all of them found aspartame to be harmless, not induce an insulin response, etc (i.e the complete opposite of your theory). Diet coke hates are in the same category as anti-vacs campaigners... They don't believe in science.

I came across something contrary to that. "Data from large, epidemiologic studies support the existence of an association between artificially-sweetened beverage consumption and weight gain in children." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951976/ One thing to keep in mind is that studies of diet and nutrition are always very hazy and go back and forth constantly. Human lifespans are long and diets are complex, so it's difficult to say whether or not any one thing is "harmless." Saturated fats were thought to be a major cause of heart disease for a long time, but now that's apparently no longer true. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230367840... I don't think comparing anti-diet soda drinkers and antivaxers is really a fair comparison. Soda and artificial sweeteners aren't in any way beneficial for anybody; vaccines save countless lives.

Well, if artificial sweeteners caused a reduced (or zero) insulin response (which science says they do), and thus lowered the risk of obesity, then a (tenuous, though real) causal link can be made between saving lives, and artificial sweeteners, no?

The parent linked to a study demonstrating a link between aspartame and obesity. Did you even look at it before you wrote your facetious little reply? If you do, you'll notice it says the opposite of what you seem to think it does. And stop invoking the word "science" like it's an infallible deity whispering in your (and only your) ear. Science is a process and IMO the result is not in on this one yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy Okay, I get it, you are upset that I implied you were an anti-vaccer. I'm sorry for being facetious too: No smiling, serious business here. > Science is a process and IMO the result is not in on this one yet. On aspartame it's well and truly in. That's my point. If I haven't provided enough references, just google[0] it and read ALL the science. It's been studied to death and back again. I hate to say it, but now you're the one being a dick. :( [0] scholar.google.com

It's not a link (causation), it's an association (correlation). Which should be more than obvious, fat people drink diet coke precisely because they are fat, it makes no sense to prefer that wretched taste if you are not weight-conscious.

There is a lot of variation in how people taste artificial sweeteners. In my informal surveys, some people think Diet Coke tastes sweeter than regular Coke, and some people think regular Coke tastes sweeter. In general, people seem to prefer the one that tastes less sweet.

That was a needlessly hostile and insulting response. I'm merely pointing out some personal experiences, and made appropriate qualifications to that effect. And your blanket dismissal is doubtful anyway. Here's a study clearly indicating correlation between aspartame and insulin response: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/7/e59.full Cephalic-phase insulin release is a known phenomenon and could obviously be triggered by expectation of a diet drink. Being skeptical of mainstream nutritional "science" (barely worthy of the name, IMO, and which has led to an unprecedented obesity epidemic) is in no way comparable to "anti-vaxxers". And frankly, if I noticed a very strong correlation between people I knew who'd been vaccinated and then all suddenly became autistic, I'd be asking questions too, and would be right to do so, and that spirit of skeptical enquiry is the very essence of science.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be that hostile, and I seem to have continued that in my other responses. Apoligises to all. There is a lot of mis-information around artificial sweeteners, I think it just triggers my "Frustrated with the internet" nerve or something. I agree, be skeptical, question, don't take things at face value. But, I'd add: be informed, look up where we are at in current day research. Diabetic research is huge, it isn't generally something to be skeptical of, there are people who's lives are saved, preserved, made better because of that research. But again, sorry for being a dick. :)

Well, apology accepted I suppose. However.. > There is a lot of mis-information around artificial sweeteners Sure is. And perhaps you're contributing to it. You sure haven't produced any evidence that you're right and everyone else is wrong. > it just triggers my "Frustrated with the internet" Well, your belligerent responses to people's polite, reasonable comments kind of trigger that in me. Let's not be part of the problem... > look up where we are at in current day research There have been two studies linked to supporting the claims made by myself and others. You haven't posted anything. Take your own advice! > Diabetic research is huge, it isn't generally something to be skeptical of And yet we're living in an unprecedented, worldwide obesity epidemic. Someone is obviously very wrong about something. It's my personal belief that in 50 years we'll be looking back on current nutritional "science" the same way we look back on "healthy cigarettes" in the 60s. We'll get it right eventually, but we sure haven't yet. (edited for politeness)

If a person is able to make good decisions even when as is the case here the peer-reviewed science points strongly in neither direction, he will be able to win more often at life than someone that must rely on peer-reviewed science. I avoid all artificial sweeteners (and Stevia) for essentially the same reasons as grandparent BTW. But even if one pays attention only to peer-reviewed studies, one will make bad decisions if one misinterprets them. Your dismissal of the author of grandparent as someone who doesn't "believe in science" suggests to me that you do not know how correctly to interpret the peer-reviewed studies here (which again I believe do not point strongly in either direction). (For most questions people have about diet and health, the peer-reviewed studies, when interpreted correctly, do not point strongly in any one direction.) In particular, studies showing that aspartame does not induce an insulin response are not particularly strong evidence against grandparent's assertion that with all of the artificial sweeteners, <<there's some kind of message at play - "lots of sugar coming, blood, get ready!">> For something as central to the metabolism of living things as the common dietary sugars, there will be hundreds of molecules besides insulin involved. It would take many many paragraphs to explain the case against artificial sweeteners in enough detail for there to be any hope of your following the explanation. I do not want to write those paragraphs. I'm just briefly adding my support to what I consider an illuminating and well-written comment (grandparent).

> For something as central to the metabolism of living things as the common dietary sugars, there will be hundreds of molecules besides insulin involved. See, you sound exactly like an anti-vacser... Insulin is the "Lots of sugar coming, blood, get ready" response. There isn't hundreds of other molecules involved... there is insulin. Do you see type I diabetics injecting anything else into themselves? Please, take many paragraphs and explain, because your vague bullshit ridden comment, is far from convincing.

I really need to do some digging, see if there are any relevant studies... see, I don't think I have met anyone with any particular issues, who drinks soda in moderation. Remember, the dose makes the poison.

I'm shocked that you find this shocking. Seriously, I do not understand your reaction here - what part of this habit is sufficiently terrible to warrant a comparison to smoking?

It's silly, or at least naive, to be shocked by an educated person who smokes, or abuses alcohol, or abuses hard drugs, or is overweight, or doesn't get enough sleep, or does any number of other unhealthy practices. Being educated has very little to do with any of those things.

There's no good that comes from just about any drink, aside from water. Too much milk can give you kidney stones. Too much fruit juice gives you cavities. Too much coffee stains your teeth and gives you, what was it, high blood pressure? On and on.

Actually not so much - water is all about osmotic pressure. Coffee and tea are full of soluble compounds and even salts and the like already, so they won't be as bad. If anything you're more likely to get messed up from the diuretic effects.

to the best of my knowledge, there's no good that comes from it I'm drinking my second Diet Coke (with Splenda®) of the day right now. I find it to be a nice way to get a continual, low-dose of caffeine. More importantly, the flavor and fizz is very refreshing and has good mouth-feel. Not everything "good" is measured by some objective health metric. And the "bad" about Diet Coke likely pales in comparison to the countless other "bad" factors in people's lives.

Health issues such as? It's Diet Cola, and the brain cancer link was thoroughly debunked.

Yes, everything enjoyable is bad your health. Choose your poison, or live as a eunuch monk.

At least with smoking there CAN be an indulgent experience, as with good wine, good chocolate, good coffee, great tea ... Coke is just sugared soda, or artificially sweetened soda. (Yes, I also drink a can of soda once in a while, but that's maybe a can per month.)

Bill Gates Drinks Diet Coke

Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7894207

Share :