Is Sparkling Water Good for Weight Loss? Honest Evidence Review

The honest answer: plain sparkling water is zero-calorie hydration and a defensible replacement for soda — which is where most of its real weight-loss leverage comes from. Small mechanistic studies show carbonation produces short-term gastric distension and a modest satiety bump. There is no head-to-head randomized trial of sparkling water versus still water for body-weight outcomes in humans, and a 2017 rat study with a small parallel human arm raised a ghrelin counter-signal that has never been replicated in a proper human crossover. The headline number in the only RCT that measured gastric volume directly with MRI — Cuomo and colleagues 2011 in Nutrition Journal^[1] — was a significantly larger stomach volume after a 300 mL carbonated pre-load compared to still water, but at maximum satiety the volumes equalized and total kilocalorie intake at the meal did not differ between carbonated, non-carbonated, and water conditions. Suzuki 2017 in J Nutr Sci Vitaminol^[2] measured a real but transient increase in fullness ratings and decreased hunger ratings after a 250 mL carbonated water load in 13 young women. The Eweis 2017 study^[4] that gets cited as the “sparkling water makes you hungrier” counter- evidence is a 1-year rat-feeding study with a 20-male- student parallel sub-arm; the rat data is the load-bearing signal and the human arm was not a weight-loss crossover. For the broader debunk of the TikTok water-and-weight-loss canon, see our TikTok water, lemon, chia myths review.

What the evidence actually shows, by trial

There are four published mechanistic studies that bear directly on whether carbonation changes appetite or food intake in humans, and one rat study that gets cited constantly as the “ghrelin counter-point.” Reading them honestly:

• Cuomo 2011 Nutrition Journal^[1] — n=10 healthy adults (4 women, mean BMI 23). 300 mL pre-load: water vs non-carbonated beverage (B-CO2) vs carbonated beverage (B+CO2). Total gastric volume was measured by MRI after the drink and again at maximum satiety. Result: stomach volume immediately after B+CO2 was significantly larger than after still water or non-carbonated beverage (p < 0.05). But at maximum satiety, volumes equalized across conditions, and total kilocalorie intake at the meal did not differ between groups. The trial showed short-term distension but no calorie-intake reduction.
• Suzuki 2017 J Nutr Sci Vitaminol^[2] — n=13 young women, randomized crossover with a 250 mL carbonated water load at 15°C against still water, plus modified sham-feeding arms (swish and spit). Fullness ratings on visual-analog scales increased and hunger ratings decreased significantly after carbonated water, with transient effects also visible in the sham-feeding arm. Electrogastrography showed increased normogastria (2–4 cycles per minute) and tachygastria (4–9 cpm) power. Real signal but short-duration; no follow-on food-intake measurement.
• Cuomo 2002 Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol^[3] — n=21 patients with functional dyspepsia and secondary constipation, double-blind RCT, 15 days of carbonated water vs tap water. Dyspepsia score fell from 7.9 to 5.4 (p < 0.05) on carbonated water; tap water unchanged. Constipation score fell from 16.0 to 12.1 (p < 0.05). Not a weight-loss trial, but the only medium-duration RCT in this whole literature.
• Eweis 2017 Obes Res Clin Pract^[4] — this is the famous “sparkling water raises ghrelin” paper. Read carefully: the weight-gain finding was in male rats followed for ~1 year, gavaged with carbonated soft drinks (not plain sparkling water) versus degassed-soft-drink or tap- water controls. The rats on carbonated beverages gained weight faster and showed higher gastric ghrelin release ex vivo plus increased liver lipid accumulation. The paper does include a small parallel arm of 20 male students with measured ghrelin after beverage ingestion — but that arm is not a randomized weight-loss crossover. The rodent data is the primary signal.
• Takahashi 2025 BMJ Nutr Prev Health^[9] — widely-shared 2025 single-author hypothesis paper proposing that CO2 in carbonated water is converted to bicarbonate by carbonic anhydrase in red blood cells, increasing intracellular pH, stimulating anaerobic glycolysis and glucose uptake. The author's own explicit conclusion: “the amount is so small that it is difficult to expect weight loss effects solely from the CO2 in carbonated water.” This is not an RCT; it is a mechanism hypothesis with an honest negative quantitative conclusion. It is being misread on social media as evidence that sparkling water causes weight loss.

That is the entire published evidence base for sparkling water and appetite or weight in humans. Five papers, combined human sample size on the order of 65 across the four human-subject studies plus a 20-person sub-arm in the rat paper. There is no large RCT, no meta-analysis, no head-to-head trial of sparkling water vs still water for body-weight outcomes. Anyone claiming a confident magnitude is reading further into the literature than the literature supports.

The gastric distension mechanism, honestly

The proposed mechanism for sparkling-water satiety is physically real and replicates in mechanistic data: CO2 in the beverage liberates as gas in the warm, acidic stomach, increasing total gastric volume relative to the same volume of still water. Stretch receptors in the gastric wall signal volume to the brain via vagal afferents and via peripheral CCK and PYY release. Volume in the stomach is one of the satiation cues.

The Cuomo 2011 MRI data^[1] quantified the immediate volume difference: after a 300 mL carbonated pre-load, total gastric volume was measurably larger than after the same volume of still water. The Suzuki 2017 EGG data^[2] showed parallel changes in gastric electrical activity. Both effects are short-duration — the CO2 burps out, the stretch dissipates, the signal fades.

Where the “sparkling water suppresses appetite” framing falls apart in the data: in Cuomo 2011, at maximum satiety the kilocalorie intake at the meal did not differ between conditions. The body compensated. The short-term volume bump did not translate into measurably reduced calorie intake at the immediate next meal. This is the same kind of finding that has shown up repeatedly with low-calorie pre-load strategies: the local satiety signal exists, the downstream calorie-balance effect is small or absent.

Realistic takeaway: if a glass of sparkling water before a meal helps you eat a little less at that meal, the local mechanism is plausible and harmless. The published evidence does not support a confident claim that the effect is large or that it persists across the day.

The ghrelin counter-point: what Eweis 2017 actually said

Headlines from late 2024 onward routinely cite a study claiming that sparkling water “increases the hunger hormone” ghrelin. That study is Eweis 2017^[4], and it is worth reading the methods carefully before treating it as a human-relevant counter-point.

The primary experiment was in male rats gavaged for approximately one year with one of four beverages: a commercially available carbonated soft drink, the same soft drink degassed, a flat sugar-matched control, or tap water. The carbonated-soft-drink arm gained weight faster than controls. Gastric ghrelin release measured ex vivo from rat stomach tissue was elevated in the carbonated arm. Liver lipid accumulation was elevated in the same arm. These are real findings. They are findings in rats, on carbonated soft drinks (not plain sparkling water), with a sugar-matched comparator, over a multi-month gavage protocol.

The paper also reports a parallel sub-arm of 20 male students with measured ghrelin after acute beverage ingestion. This is not a randomized weight-loss crossover. It is a small acute-hormone measurement in a sub-cohort whose primary purpose was to demonstrate that the rat ghrelin signal had a plausible human correlate.

The honest interpretation: Eweis 2017 raises a hypothesis that the CO2 component of carbonated soft drinks may contribute to weight gain beyond the sugar component in long-term rodent feeding. It is biologically interesting. It is not evidence that plain sparkling water makes humans hungrier in real life, and no published human RCT has replicated a ghrelin-mediated weight-gain effect of plain sparkling water. Anyone citing Eweis 2017 as proof that sparkling water “increases hunger” in humans is overreading a rat study.

Where the real weight-loss leverage comes from: soda replacement

The dominant evidence-based mechanism by which sparkling water can meaningfully support weight loss has nothing to do with CO2, ghrelin, or gastric distension. It is beverage-calorie displacement.

A standard 12-fluid-ounce (355 mL) can of regular cola is ~140 kcal. A standard 12-fl-oz can of plain sparkling water is 0 kcal. The arithmetic is unsurprising: drinking one sparkling water in place of one regular soda per day saves ~140 kcal per day, which compounds to roughly 1 pound of fat per month at energy balance.

The Fresán 2016 SUN cohort analysis^[8] modeled this substitution effect directly. Following 15,765 adults without baseline obesity over a 4-year period, the investigators ran substitution models where one serving per day of water replaced one serving of various beverages. The substitution of water for sugar-sweetened beverages and alcoholic beverages was associated with reduced incidence of obesity. This is the cohort-level confirmation of the calorie-displacement arithmetic.

For most adults trying to lose weight, this is the entire case for sparkling water:

• It tastes like a beverage (i.e., not boring), which makes it a viable behavioral substitute for soda, juice, or alcohol.
• It is zero-calorie.
• It is well-tolerated, broadly available, and adds variety without macronutrient cost.

The mechanism is the absence of liquid calories, not any active pharmacology of CO2. If you would otherwise drink sparkling water alongside your usual diet, the weight effect is zero. If you drink sparkling water instead of a daily can of soda, the weight effect is approximately whatever the soda was contributing.

Magnitude vs other interventions

For the comparison-of-magnitude context: the Wilding 2021 STEP-1 trial of semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly^[10] reported a 14.9% reduction in body weight at 68 weeks in 1,961 adults with overweight or obesity. The Jastreboff 2022 SURMOUNT-1 trial of tirzepatide 15 mg weekly^[11] reported a 20.9% reduction at 72 weeks in 2,539 adults. For a 100 kg starting weight, those are −15 kg and −21 kg respectively.

The sparkling-water-itself effect on body weight in the published RCT data is indistinguishable from zero (Cuomo 2011 next-meal kcal intake equalized). The soda- displacement effect — modeled, not directly trialed — is on the order of 1% body weight per year at one soda-can per day. GLP-1 pharmacotherapy is a 15–21% effect over a year and change. These are not comparable interventions.

Tooth enamel: plain sparkling water vs flavored

The most common health concern raised against sparkling water is dental erosion. The published evidence draws a sharp line between plain sparkling mineral water and flavored sparkling water drinks.

Parry and colleagues 2001^[5] in Journal of Oral Rehabilitation tested a range of still and sparkling mineral waters against comparator soft drinks using in vitro dissolution assays with extracted human teeth and powdered hydroxyapatite. The headline finding: sparkling mineral waters showed slightly greater dissolution than still waters, but levels remained approximately one hundred times less than the comparator soft drinks. De-gassing a sparkling mineral water reduced its dissolution only modestly, supporting their conclusion that carbonation per se is not the primary driver of erosion. Calcium-ion content of the mineral water moderated dissolution further. The investigators' explicit framing: mineral waters “appear to offer a safe alternative to more erosive acidic beverages.”

Brown and colleagues 2007^[6] in Int J Paediatr Dent tested flavoured sparkling water drinks from the UK market. All of the flavoured waters tested showed pH 2.74–3.34 and titratable acidity 0.344–0.663 mmol. In the hydroxyapatite dissolution assay, all of the flavoured waters demonstrated erosive potential 89–143% of pure orange juice — an established erosive drink. Exposure of extracted teeth produced visible enamel surface alterations on electron microscopy.

Practical takeaway: plain sparkling mineral water and home- carbonated tap water (SodaStream, etc.) are a near-rounding- error problem for enamel relative to soda or juice. Flavored sparkling water drinks — especially those with added citric acid, malic acid, or fruit-acid flavorings — are erosive in vitro at levels comparable to orange juice. If enamel is a clinical concern, plain is meaningfully safer than flavored.

Bone density: it's colas, not carbonation

The Framingham Osteoporosis Study analysis by Tucker and colleagues 2006^[7] is the canonical reference on carbonated beverages and bone mineral density. In 1,413 women and 1,125 men, dietary intake was assessed by food- frequency questionnaire and BMD was measured at the spine and three hip sites by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The headline finding is in the paper title: colas, but not other carbonated beverages, were associated with low BMD at hip sites in women, but not in men. Mean BMD was 3.7% lower at the femoral neck for daily cola intake versus consumption of less than one serving per month. The Framingham investigators implicated phosphoric acid and caffeine, both of which are specific to colas, not the carbonation itself. Non-cola carbonated beverages — including plain sparkling water — showed no significant BMD association.

The folklore that “sparkling water is bad for bones” is a misreading of the Framingham finding. The bone-density signal in that data is a colas-specific signal and is most parsimoniously explained by the phosphoric-acid and caffeine content of those beverages. Plain sparkling water and home-carbonated tap water do not contain phosphoric acid and do not contain caffeine; the carbonic acid that gives sparkling water its tingle is a weak acid that is rapidly liberated to CO2 gas and does not produce the same urinary calcium loss pattern as phosphoric acid.

Sodastream, LaCroix, and the “commercial with sweeteners” tier

The sparkling-water shelf is increasingly heterogeneous. For weight-loss purposes, there are three meaningful categories:

• Plain unflavored sparkling water (Sodastream + tap, plain Pellegrino, plain Topo Chico, unflavored Polar) — 0 kcal, 0 g sugar, 0 mg sodium to ~30 mg sodium depending on mineral content. The cleanest substitute for soda. The published mechanistic satiety data and the enamel data both refer to this tier.
• Flavored unsweetened sparkling water (LaCroix, Bubly, Polar seltzer, Aha) — 0 kcal, 0 g added sugar in the major US brands. Flavor typically comes from “natural flavors” (citrus oils, plant extracts) and citric acid. Brown 2007^[6] showed flavored sparkling waters are erosive to enamel in vitro. Per-can calorie cost is still effectively zero. The erosion concern is real but relative — far below orange juice in cumulative exposure for most drinkers because total contact time per day is short.
• Flavored sparkling water with sweeteners (Spindrift adds real juice and counts ~2–15 kcal per can depending on flavor; Sparkling Ice and many “hydration” products add stevia, sucralose, erythritol, or acesulfame potassium) — this is a functionally different product from plain sparkling water. Calorie cost is low but non-zero; the non- nutritive-sweetener literature on weight outcomes is its own debate, with WHO 2023 issuing a conditional recommendation against routine non-sugar sweeteners for weight control. For someone using sparkling water as a soda replacement, the lowest-friction choice is plain or flavored-unsweetened, not the sweetener-containing tier.

For Sodastream specifically: home carbonation of plain municipal tap water is the cleanest sparkling water you can buy on a per-dollar basis. The CO2 cartridge is the only ingredient. There is no flavor system, no sweetener system, no added sodium. If a habit is the goal, the SodaStream economics tend to win over commercial sparkling water over months.

Pairing with a GLP-1: the hydration support angle

For patients on semaglutide (Wegovy, Ozempic) or tirzepatide (Zepbound, Mounjaro), hydration is not optional. The Wegovy Section 5.5 and Zepbound Section 5.3 FDA labels both carry verbatim warnings about postmarketing cases of acute kidney injury preceded by GI-driven volume depletion. Hypothalamic GLP-1 receptor agonism suppresses thirst drive in parallel with hunger drive, so patients often under-drink throughout the day without feeling classically thirsty.

Sparkling water can be a useful tactical tool during the nausea-dominant titration weeks for three reasons:

• Carbonation helps some patients with nausea. The Cuomo 2002 RCT^[3] in functional dyspepsia and constipation showed 15 days of carbonated water improved dyspepsia and constipation scores. This is not a direct test of GLP-1 nausea, but the symptom overlap is meaningful and the empiric pattern is consistent with what GLP-1 patients report.
• Flavor variety drives fluid intake. Patients who find plain water unappealing during nausea weeks will often drink more total fluid if some of it is sparkling and flavored. Total fluid intake is the outcome that matters; the route of getting there is flexible.
• Zero calories preserves the appetite- suppression dividend. The whole point of GLP-1 therapy is reduced energy intake; replacing fluids with calorie-bearing beverages partially undoes the appetite- suppression effect. Plain or flavored-unsweetened sparkling water adds no calories.

Caveats: for patients with active gastroparesis or severe early satiety, gastric distension from carbonation can worsen the “food sitting in my stomach” feeling. If carbonation makes the early-satiety symptom worse, switch to still water until titration stabilizes. For patients with reflux symptoms during the nausea phase, carbonation can also worsen reflux for the same distension reason. Empirical — try it, watch how you feel, adjust. See our GLP-1 nausea management practical guide for the broader symptom-management framework.

Common myths

Myth #1: “Sparkling water makes you hungrier.” This claim rests almost exclusively on Eweis 2017^[4] — a 1-year rat-feeding study with carbonated soft drinks, not plain sparkling water, in male rats. The 20-male- student parallel arm was an acute-hormone measurement, not a weight-loss crossover. No published human RCT has replicated a hunger-increasing effect of plain sparkling water. The two human mechanistic studies of plain sparkling water^[1][2] showed short-term increases in fullness, not hunger.

Myth #2: “Sparkling water erodes your teeth.” Parry 2001^[5] tested this directly: plain sparkling mineral water erosion is approximately one hundred times less than soft drinks. Flavored sparkling waters are a different story — Brown 2007^[6] showed UK-market flavored sparkling waters have erosive potential comparable to orange juice. Plain is fine; flavored deserves the same moderation as juice.

Myth #3: “Sparkling water is bad for your bones.” The Framingham Osteoporosis Study finding^[7] was specifically a colas-only signal in women, with no signal for other carbonated beverages. The proposed mechanism is phosphoric acid and caffeine, neither of which is in plain sparkling water. Carbonation itself does not produce the urinary calcium loss pattern implicated in the cola-BMD association.

Myth #4: “CO2 in sparkling water boosts metabolism.” The 2025 Takahashi BMJ NPH report^[9] is the single source for this claim. Read the author's own conclusion: “the amount is so small that it is difficult to expect weight loss effects solely from the CO2 in carbonated water.” The mechanism is biologically plausible; the quantitative effect, in the author's own framing, is negligible. The paper has been widely misrepresented on social media as evidence that sparkling water itself causes weight loss.

Myth #5: “Sparkling water before meals is a weight-loss hack.” Cuomo 2011^[1] directly tested a 300 mL pre-load and measured the downstream meal calorie intake. There was no significant difference in total kilocalorie intake at maximum satiety between carbonated, non-carbonated, and water conditions. The short-term gastric distension did not translate into measurably reduced calorie intake at the meal. The pre- load idea is plausible and harmless; the published evidence does not support a confident magnitude.

When sparkling water can backfire

For most adults, plain sparkling water is safe and compatible with weight loss. There are three populations where it can backfire:

• People with IBS, functional dyspepsia, or active gastroparesis. Carbonation expands in the stomach. For patients whose baseline symptom is early satiety, abdominal bloating, or upper-abdominal discomfort, sparkling water can worsen the symptom acutely. Cuomo 2002^[3] showed average improvement in dyspepsia scores across a 21-patient group; individual patients can move in the opposite direction.
• People with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Carbonation can worsen reflux symptoms by gastric distension and by promoting transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations. If reflux flares when you drink sparkling water, switch to still.
• People drinking flavored or sweetened “sparkling water” products as a soda replacement and noticing it's not helping. The weight-loss leverage of sparkling water is calorie displacement. If the “sparkling water” you are drinking contains 50–150 kcal per can (Spindrift higher-juice flavors, some flavored Sodastream syrups, Sparkling Ice with sucralose has effectively zero calories but is a separate sweetener discussion), you have not actually changed the calorie arithmetic. Read the label.

How to use sparkling water for weight loss, practically

• Use it as a one-for-one substitute for a calorie-bearing beverage (soda, juice, sweetened coffee drinks, beer, wine). This is where the real weight effect lives. A daily can of regular soda is ~140 kcal; swapping that for plain or flavored-unsweetened sparkling water is the cleanest behavioral arbitrage in the food environment.
• Prefer plain or flavored-unsweetened over sweetener-containing products. The mechanistic and erosion data both refer to plain sparkling water. Adding sweeteners introduces the separate non-nutritive- sweetener debate.
• Try a glass before meals if it helps you eat less. The Cuomo 2011 next-meal data^[1] did not show a calorie-intake reduction on average, but individual response varies. If a 300 mL glass of sparkling water 15 minutes before dinner consistently leaves you finishing less of the meal, you have a useful personal data point that the population-level RCT does not have power to detect.
• Don't expect sparkling water itself to drive weight loss. The mechanistic effects are short, modest, and have not been shown to translate into body-weight differences in any controlled trial. The honest framing is “compatible with weight loss,” not “causes weight loss.”
• If you are on a GLP-1, use sparkling water for fluid variety during nausea weeks. The Wegovy and Zepbound labels both warn about GI-driven volume depletion; hitting 2–2.5 L/day of total fluid is the priority. Sparkling water can fill that role when plain water feels unappealing.
• Skip carbonation if you have IBS, gastroparesis, severe reflux, or GLP-1 early-satiety symptoms. The distension effect is real and can worsen those symptoms individually.

Bottom line

• Plain sparkling water is zero-calorie and a defensible substitute for soda. Most of its real weight-loss leverage comes from calorie displacement, not from CO2 pharmacology.
• Cuomo 2011^[1] showed measurable short-term gastric distension after a carbonated pre-load (MRI- quantified), but next-meal kilocalorie intake did not differ between carbonated, non-carbonated, and still- water conditions. Suzuki 2017^[2] showed short-term fullness and decreased hunger ratings after a 250 mL carbonated load.
• The famous “sparkling water raises ghrelin” claim rests on Eweis 2017^[4], a 1-year rat study on carbonated soft drinks (not plain sparkling water) with a small 20-male-student parallel arm. No published human RCT replicates a hunger-increasing effect of plain sparkling water.
• The 2025 Takahashi BMJ NPH report^[9] proposed a CO2-to-erythrocyte-bicarbonate metabolism pathway and the author's own quantitative conclusion is that the magnitude is negligible.
• Tooth enamel: plain sparkling mineral water dissolution is roughly 100x less than soft drinks per Parry 2001^[5]. Flavored sparkling water drinks are a different story — Brown 2007^[6] measured erosion comparable to orange juice.
• Bone density: Tucker 2006 Framingham^[7] found a colas-only association with low BMD, attributed to phosphoric acid and caffeine, not carbonation. Plain sparkling water and home-carbonated water show no BMD signal.
• Soda displacement is the real mechanism: a 12-oz can of cola is ~140 kcal; substituting plain sparkling water is roughly 1 lb of fat per month at energy balance. The Fresán 2016 SUN cohort^[8] modeled this substitution and observed reduced obesity incidence.
• Magnitude vs GLP-1 therapy: STEP-1 semaglutide^[10] and SURMOUNT-1 tirzepatide^[11] produce 15–21% body-weight reductions over 68–72 weeks. Sparkling water is a food-environment tool, not a treatment for obesity.

Related research and tools

• TikTok water, lemon, chia weight-loss myths — the broader debunk of the “drink X for weight loss” canon, including lemon water, chia slurries, and the morning-water-fast myth
• Apple cider vinegar for weight loss — the parallel evidence walkthrough for another popular drinkable-supplement weight-loss myth. ACV has its own published RCT (Kondo 2009) showing ~1-2 kg over 12 weeks; sparkling water has no equivalent
• Lemon balm for weight loss — companion herbal-water debunk; like sparkling water, the evidence base is small mechanistic studies extrapolated beyond what the data supports
• GLP-1 nausea management practical guide — the broader framework for managing GI side effects during Wegovy or Zepbound titration. Sparkling water can help or hurt depending on individual response to gastric distension
• Watermelon for weight loss — the high-water-content food that has actually been tested in a published RCT (Lum 2019, PMID 30870970). Watermelon and plain sparkling water share the “low-energy-density / high-water” framing
• Semaglutide (Wegovy / Ozempic) — STEP-1 magnitude reference (−14.9% body weight at 68 weeks). Section 5.5 of the Wegovy label carries the GI-dehydration kidney-injury warning that makes hydration tactical
• Tirzepatide (Zepbound / Mounjaro) — SURMOUNT-1 magnitude reference (−20.9% body weight at 72 weeks). Section 5.3 of the Zepbound label has the parallel dehydration warning
• What to eat on a GLP-1: the protein-first guide — the meal-pattern framework into which sparkling water fits as a fluid choice
• GLP-1 protein calculator — daily protein target (1.6–2.0 g/kg) for lean-mass preservation; sparkling water contributes zero to that target

Important disclaimer. This article is educational and does not constitute medical or nutrition advice. Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, IBS, functional dyspepsia, gastroparesis, or active GLP-1 early-satiety symptoms may experience worse symptoms with carbonated beverages on an individual basis and should adjust accordingly. The published mechanistic evidence on plain sparkling water and appetite is short-duration and small-n; the “ghrelin counter-point” widely cited from Eweis 2017 is primarily a rat-feeding study with carbonated soft drinks and should not be read as evidence that plain sparkling water makes humans hungrier. PMIDs were independently verified against the PubMed E-utilities API on 2026-05-18. The soda-displacement weight-loss arithmetic depends on what beverage is being replaced; replacing zero-calorie still water with sparkling water produces no calorie change.

Last verified: 2026-05-18. Next review: every 12 months, or sooner if a new human RCT on sparkling water and body-weight outcomes is published.