My beverage of choice and from past deal it seems to be ozbargain’s choice as well. Not the cheapest it’s been but this is still good considering “can’t get staff” levy being put on everything.
Minimum order of 2 unfortunately so may not be deal for many although good for me as I buy 2 at a time anyway.
Enjoy!
CamelCamelCamel.
It does taste different. If you drink it thinking to imitate the original, you won't like it. As a completely different carbonated ginger drink, I think it tastes great.
I think it tastes very average compared to full strength - just not sweet enough. However, when you try one you do appreciate how much sugar (and other crap probably) is in the full strength version.
More ginger in the sugar free.
I'm the opposite, the normal one is way too sweet for me. Diet one tastes great and has more of a ginger taste to it.
Cool, I will get some because I find the normal one to be too sweet. I enjoy not so sweet things like kombucha and Moon Dog Ginger Beer (which is low sugar, at least they seem to brew it naturally so the sugar is consumed by the bacteria into alcohol).
I previously thought they just switched sugar for fake sugar in these, didn’t know they were actually low sugar versions.
Bundaberg is the best non alcohol ginger beer.
Tastes very different.
If you ever get the chance to do the tasting experience at the factory in bundy, do it. Sugar overload by the end.
Best way I can explain the difference:
I believe there's literally no difference in ingredients between the two except the amount of sugar. Meaning there's no "substitute sugar" or anything.
OG: Lots of sugar, which covers ginger 'bitterness' with softdrink style sweetness.
Diet: Much more bitterness, as there's less than a teaspoon of sugar per glass.
I prefer the Diet version so much more in taste - but it's very subjective.
It says it contains twice the ginger compared to the original
Original Ingredients: Carbonated water, cane sugar, ginger root, natural flavours, acid (citric acid), yeast, preservatives (202, 211), antioxidant (ascorbic acid).
Diet Ingredients: Carbonated Water, Ginger Root (1.4%), Cane Sugar, Natural Flavours, Yeast, Acids (Citric Acid, Malic Acid), Preservative (211), Sweeteners (951, 950, 955), Antioxidant (Ascorbic Acid), Stabiliser (412). Contains Phenylalanine.
According to the Bundaberg site, the diet version does contain artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose, acesulphame K).
I'm a fan of the diet. Would rather give up a bit on taste for the huge reductions in sugar
It contains aspartame which is supposed to be carcinogenic. Basically, Diet drinks are more dangerous than sugary drinks. Unless the sweetener is stevia or something natural, be assured that the substance is bad for the body.
Aspartame is not carcinogenic.
stop spreading misinformation, "Research shows no consistent connection between consuming aspartame and the development of any kind of cancer. Aspartame is considered safe and has been approved for use by the FDA in the amounts people normally eat or drink it. Aspartame isn’t included in the lists of known or likely carcinogens by the federal or international agencies who compile them." Studies that try to link aspartame to cancer has been inconsistent since the '80s and research has been ongoing for decades
Most of the time the studies are industry sponsored. So before you pounce and get too emotional about this, let me state a fact. A lot of times the data is muddied by "industry sponsored" data. You can check this link for example:
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/31/18037756/superfoods-food-scie…
There are numerous articles suggesting biases on food research. Some of the biggest health organizations are sponsored by Pepsi and other food companies.
Some of the research findings on aspartame:
In the most comprehensive cancer research to date on aspartame, three lifespan studies conducted by the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the Ramazzini Institute, provide consistent evidence of carcinogenicity in rodents exposed to the substance.
Aspartame “is a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of … much less than the current acceptable daily intake,” according to a 2006 lifespan rat study in Environmental Health Perspectives.1
A follow-up study in 2007 found significant dose-related increases in malignant tumors in some of the rats. “The results … confirm and reinforce the first experimental demonstration of [aspartame’s] multipotential carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the acceptable daily intake for humans … when life-span exposure begins during fetal life, its carcinogenic effects are increased,” the researchers wrote in Environmental Health Perspectives.2
The results of a 2010 lifespan study “confirm that [aspartame] is a carcinogenic agent in multiple sites in rodents, and that this effect is induced in two species, rats (males and females) and mice (males),” the researchers reported in American Journal of Industrial Medicine.3
A 2021 review of the Ramazzini Institute data validated the conclusions of the original RI studies. See, “Aspartame and cancer — new evidence of causation,” Environmental Health. The findings, “confirm that aspartame is a chemical carcinogen in rodents. They confirm the very worrisome finding that prenatal exposure to aspartame increases cancer risk in rodent offspring.”
Harvard researchers in 2012 reported a positive association between aspartame intake and increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma in men, and for leukemia in men and women. The findings “preserve the possibility of a detrimental effect … on select cancers” but “do not permit the ruling out of chance as an explanation,” the researchers wrote in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.4
In a 2014 commentary in American Journal of Industrial Medicine, the Maltoni Center researchers wrote that the studies submitted by G. D. Searle for market approval “do not provide adequate scientific support for [aspartame’s] safety. In contrast, recent results of life-span carcinogenicity bioassays on rats and mice published in peer-reviewed journals, and a prospective epidemiological study, provide consistent evidence of [aspartame’s] carcinogenic potential. On the basis of the evidence of the potential carcinogenic effects … a re-evaluation of the current position of international regulatory agencies must be considered an urgent matter of public health.”5
Brain Tumors
In 1996, researchers reported in the Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology on epidemiological evidence connecting the introduction of aspartame to an increase in an aggressive type of malignant brain tumors. “Compared to other environmental factors putatively linked to brain tumors, the artificial sweetener aspartame is a promising candidate to explain the recent increase in incidence and degree of malignancy of brain tumors … We conclude that there is need for reassessing the carcinogenic potential of aspartame.”6
Neuroscientist Dr. John Olney, lead author of the study, told 60 minutes in 1996: “there has been a striking increase in the incidence of malignant brain tumors (in the three to five years following the approval of aspartame) … there is enough basis to suspect aspartame that it needs to be reassessed. FDA needs to reassess it, and this time around, FDA should do it right.”
Early studies on aspartame in the 1970s found evidence of brain tumors in laboratory animals, but those studies were not followed up.
So these are just few. It is also linked to Alzeihmers and a lot of diseases.
@SharTheDeal: There are 200+ studies supporting aspartame's safety. Studies on rats do not correlate to humans - and even then the rat studies have been discarded due to poor data.
Both of the commentaries on brain tumors are pure speculation.
@Autonomic: Please check this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy
Even though there was insufficient evidence for malignancies, there were still hyperplasias. (This study was promoted by aspartame producer!)
But there was evidence of FDA corruption.
Many countries have considered banning aspartame. For example Indonesia, Phillipines.
@SharTheDeal: Which study? If you're talking about the rat study, them misdiagnosing malignancies as hyperplasia was only ONE of the many flaws of the study. If you said browsing ozbargain turned you pink and then showed an example of the colour blue, that means you don't know your colours - it doesn't mean ozbargain turns people blue instead of pink.
Many countries have considered banning aspartame. For example Indonesia, Phillipines.
First I've heard of it. Presumably they then did their research and realised there's no evidence to suggest it's harmful.
Sweeteners myth from the Cancer Council of WA.
Also Choice has an article on it.
But some research shows that artificial sweeteners may cause weight gain by causing people to eat more
Your best bet is to avoid over consumption of both as best as you can.
Anyone else’s get smashed in transit?
Get on chat with Amazon. Send them pics and they’ll refund you for the whole purchase, not just broken ones.
TBH I've been drinking the diet ginger beer bottles from Aldi (brand is "Burrandy" - not sure if it's at all stores) and it's usually $5 for 6x 375ml bottles, and I like it as much as Bundy (or maybe a bit more because it's cheaper ;D
It could be just me but the aldi ones have after taste where as i dont get that after taste in bundaberg. I also feel that bundaberg diet version is less sweeter than original version - atleast thats the case to my taste buds.
It's a shame you have to order 2 as I haven't had diet before and I am hesitant that I'd be drinking 24 of these.
Got 2 cases last week at $11.88 each
Try the Aldi diet ginger beer, it doesn't have the weird chemical aftertaste of fake sugar
Bundaberg 4-pack varieties are on sale at Coles for $4.5 if you want to mix it up
I finally got a chance to try the saxby diet and can confirm its not only sweeter, but also lacks the real ginger taste.
Bundy is far superior.
Try the Aldi one if you get a chance. Pretty bloody close to Bundy IMO.
See a doc and test your taste buds .
Thanks for the unnecessary and unsolicited medical advice. /s
Buy the normal one and dilute with soda water :)
seems prices have gone up
This actually tastes very nice for a 'diet' drink!
I think I prefer this over the full strength one to be honest.
Price has gone up though… all over.
Same price at Coles now, 2 x 4-packs for $9
Mine got shipped from WA.
Not a fan of diet drinks normally. Is this any good compared to the original? Is the taste much different? Cheers.