Should I eliminate aspartame from my life? My Doctor says yes!
Options
Replies
-
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Sorry to make an example of your post, and sorry if I'm wrong.... but you just dropped "because science".
In a previous thread that you started, you said that you were a chef.
Instead of assuming, I'm going to ask... are you a chef with a PhD or MD, or even a BSc. Not that that is required in life, but.... I'm hoping that it is required for dropping "because science".
What is with everyone's obsession with credentials on this forum?
You don't need a PhD to know the fundamentals of nutrition.
Of course, I don't disagree. Not only was I not criticizing your credentials, I also was not criticizing your knowledge. But this "because science" statement I keep hearing is a little bit too authoritative. Experts wouldn't even use that slang... and they probably got to be experts by keeping an open mind and not dismissing people with statements that convey a false sense of authority.
Oh come on now, you've made the appeal to science yourself by stating that you feed your family based on it.
0 -
It really isn't that heavily processed. And processing doesn't make something not natural either. Sugar is natural too.
I am still not seeing the science based facts that stevia is in fact worse than other calorie free sweeteners. If I am missing it, then please feel free to point it out.
Nah, you can figure it out. You're a smart lady... no need to have others do the work for you
Oh, I did figure it out. You decided to throw out science when in reality...yeah, not so much. I am a smart lady and can sense someone talking BS out their *kitten* pretty gosh darn quick. Full of it.
Then your senses are very poor. As is your intelligence.stevencloser wrote: »
Again, do the research. It is a heavily processed food.
To produce rebaudioside A commercially, stevia plants are dried and subjected to a water extraction process. This crude extract contains about 50% rebaudioside A. The various glycosides are separated and purified via crystallization techniques, typically using ethanol or methanol as solvent.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
It really isn't that heavily processed. And processing doesn't make something not natural either. Sugar is natural too.
I am still not seeing the science based facts that stevia is in fact worse than other calorie free sweeteners. If I am missing it, then please feel free to point it out.
Nah, you can figure it out. You're a smart lady... no need to have others do the work for you
Oh, I did figure it out. You decided to throw out science when in reality...yeah, not so much. I am a smart lady and can sense someone talking BS out their *kitten* pretty gosh darn quick. Full of it.
Then your senses are very poor. As is your intelligence.stevencloser wrote: »
Again, do the research. It is a heavily processed food.
To produce rebaudioside A commercially, stevia plants are dried and subjected to a water extraction process. This crude extract contains about 50% rebaudioside A. The various glycosides are separated and purified via crystallization techniques, typically using ethanol or methanol as solvent.
Have you ever done ANY research on it, or are you just asserting your opinion and copy-pasting a bunch of wordy data that has no bearing on the main issue?0 -
LOL, my shirt means I paid in, not got bought out. Though if Coca Cola became a client, I'd be quiet happy.YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Here's some actual analysis based on actual scientific study.
examine.com/faq/does-diet-soda-inhibit-fat-loss.html
examine.com/faq/is-diet-soda-bad-for-you.html
examine.com/faq/does-aspartame-increase-appetite.html
And, to be in before anyone cries "but the soda industry shills", the same site has this: v6.examinecdn.com/erd/sneakpeek7.pdf
Which is a long diatribe calling out food industries rigging research, in particular, Coca Cola!
Except wait a minute.... despite the fact that I appreciate you sharing links with evidence regarding soft drinks.... maybe change your shirt please?...... I'm no conspiracy theorist but .... uhm....
ok, maybe with that last link I'll look the other way..... kind of.... but.... not.... really.....
You're forcing me to use all these periods......0 -
I just posted how it gets extracted, right there.0
-
I don't think there are any reputable studies for aspartame being bad, I hate it because it gives me headaches and causes me other problems so I avoid it (I can actually tell if I accidentally ingest something with it). That said when I was losing most of my weight, I used products with sucralose, sugar alcohol, etc., without it stopping my weight loss. I just think soda pop is junk in general, I stopped drinking it years ago for the most part. Once in a very blue moon I will have one, usually one with pure cane sugar, but I just think it is a waste of calories for the most part.0
-
"Production of Stevioside involves water extraction from the dried leaves, followed by clarification and crystalization processes. Most commercial processes consist of water extraction, decoloration, and purification using ion-exchange resins, electrolytic techniques, or precipitating agents"
From stevia.com itself.0 -
I am still not seeing the science based facts that stevia is in fact worse than other calorie free sweeteners. If I am missing it, then please feel free to point it out.
Nah, you can figure it out. You're a smart lady... no need to have others do the work for you
Oh, I did figure it out. You decided to throw out science when in reality...yeah, not so much. I am a smart lady and can sense someone talking BS out their *kitten* pretty gosh darn quick. Full of it.
Then your senses are very poor. As is your intelligence.stevencloser wrote: »
Again, do the research. It is a heavily processed food.
Ha! At least I am intelligent enough to not claim SCIENCE and then refuse to give it of course BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.
I posted multiple scientific links. It's not my fault that you're of subpar intelligence to comprehend them.
I don't even know what we are arguing here... you just dislike me, and that is fine.
But stop dishing out incorrect information... That would help all.-2 -
I am still not seeing the science based facts that stevia is in fact worse than other calorie free sweeteners. If I am missing it, then please feel free to point it out.
There are currently unresolved concerns about Stevia possibly affecting fertility. As far as I know, a lingering concern about a possible effect does put it ahead of the other sweeteners in the category of being "worse".
That's the only issue I'm aware of, there might be others.
The other thing to be aware of is that it's not some super-natural product, it's chemically extracted. Now, that doesn't bother me, but people who cling to the notion that it's an all-natural alternative should be aware of this. (Not saying you're one of these people, you're generally a very reasonable person about such things.)
0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Sorry to make an example of your post, and sorry if I'm wrong.... but you just dropped "because science".
In a previous thread that you started, you said that you were a chef.
Instead of assuming, I'm going to ask... are you a chef with a PhD or MD, or even a BSc. Not that that is required in life, but.... I'm hoping that it is required for dropping "because science".
What is with everyone's obsession with credentials on this forum?
You don't need a PhD to know the fundamentals of nutrition.
Of course, I don't disagree. Not only was I not criticizing your credentials, I also was not criticizing your knowledge. But this "because science" statement I keep hearing is a little bit too authoritative. Experts wouldn't even use that slang... and they probably got to be experts by keeping an open mind and not dismissing people with statements that convey a false sense of authority.
Oh come on now, you've made the appeal to science yourself by stating that you feed your family based on it.
Or maybe I am able to feed my family based on science because keeping an open mind and not pretending that whatever I know is absolute fact has allowed me to grow and make a great career out of it.
It's the connotation of "because science" that I don't like. Science itself is great.
Again, you have a chip on your shoulder. Stop worrying about a simple "saying" and discover the truth for yourself. At that time, YOU will be the one saying "because science".0 -
No problem at all. Continue living your life in absolute confusion about nutrition.0
-
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Sorry to make an example of your post, and sorry if I'm wrong.... but you just dropped "because science".
In a previous thread that you started, you said that you were a chef.
Instead of assuming, I'm going to ask... are you a chef with a PhD or MD, or even a BSc. Not that that is required in life, but.... I'm hoping that it is required for dropping "because science".
What is with everyone's obsession with credentials on this forum?
You don't need a PhD to know the fundamentals of nutrition.
Of course, I don't disagree. Not only was I not criticizing your credentials, I also was not criticizing your knowledge. But this "because science" statement I keep hearing is a little bit too authoritative. Experts wouldn't even use that slang... and they probably got to be experts by keeping an open mind and not dismissing people with statements that convey a false sense of authority.
Oh come on now, you've made the appeal to science yourself by stating that you feed your family based on it.
Or maybe I am able to feed my family based on science because keeping an open mind and not pretending that whatever I know is absolute fact has allowed me to grow and make a great career out of it.
It's the connotation of "because science" that I don't like. Science itself is great.
You missed my point. It's okay for you to have your interpretation of "because science", but no one else.
That's pretty much what you're saying.
Oh, you're wrapping it up in all of this language about making an appeal and shutting off discussion, but that's all it boils down to.
Don't kid a kidder.
I'm old and can read between the lines.
I'm also not impressed with how you use studies to support your position (they often don't), no matter how much you wave your credentials around. That says more about the weakness of your position than anything.
0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »And doing your own research instead of blindly following others would correct all of that hesitation and skepticism.
Yes, people should do their own research. You do yours. I do mine. If we happen to have open minds that allow us to further ourselves in life, then we share. That was established long ago.
But here is my last blunt attempt at the overall point. Using the shortest way possible:
Please everyone stop saying "because science". It immediately tells the science world that your science knowledge is anything but. Except the unsuspecting.
So you want thorough, in depth, concrete research and multiple scientific links from everyone and anyone who ever posts a factual reply on an internet forum.
Got it.
No. You don't got it. Inserting a statement that I (or anyone else) never said is not Got-ing it.
This was my statement, which I am only re-iterating because I just realized that there may be a small chance that there is a language barrier, which is the only excusable cause for misinterpretation at this point.
HERE. IS. MY. MAIN. POINT. Stop saying "Because science". Because stupid.
Stop asserting your opinion when its grounded in no scientific factual data...
It. Is. Stupid.
Learn for yourself. This isn't 2nd grade and there aren't training wheels to save you.
If you are using Google translate to get through this discussion, the joke is on me.
In other words... You are unable to comprehend a single thing that was relayed thus far because of 1) your inability to understand the English language, or 2) because you are extremely stubborn and way too prideful to admit that you are ever wrong.
I dare you to challenge anything that I have ever said in 700+ replies as scientifically wrong. I dare you...0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
I am still not seeing the science based facts that stevia is in fact worse than other calorie free sweeteners. If I am missing it, then please feel free to point it out.
There are currently unresolved concerns about Stevia possibly affecting fertility. As far as I know, a lingering concern about a possible effect does put it ahead of the other sweeteners in the category of being "worse".
That's the only issue I'm aware of, there might be others.
The other thing to be aware of is that it's not some super-natural product, it's chemically extracted. Now, that doesn't bother me, but people who cling to the notion that it's an all-natural alternative should be aware of this. (Not saying you're one of these people, you're generally a very reasonable person about such things.)
What are the odds...
I would rather take on Stevia's "risks" than take on aspartame. Pepsi is killing it in their products. The fitness industry is moving away from artificial sweeteners like sucralose (another class A example of a fraudulent artificial sweetener).
I like the Tom Brady Deflategate report verbage - "it's more probable than not..." which means I'll take my chances with Stevia over anything else.
0 -
^ The first time I have ever heard of "Pepsi is killing it" and basically, "I'm knowledgeable about nutrition" in the same sentence.
Go away, dude.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions