diet pop?
Options
Replies
-
cdstewart51115 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »No we just want to read your scientific peer reviewed studies because we are science people . I have never seen any peer reviewed studies saying our body struggles to assimilate processed foods. Linking studies helps educate people. Making claims without backing them up does not.
Point taken, but the links would not work even if i could. to post copy written material is against the law as well. Only members can access it. I go through so many, that my mistake has been to not notate the sources. This does proves that I should and when I get back to my home computer, I will track a few down to post later this week.
But the main point here is I posed another opinion and the wolves came out to attack. Being a new person here, it certainly does seem it very welcoming or respectful of opinions outside of your own. That in itself is sad enough. Would you attack a Vegan when they say people were not designed to eat meat and it is bad for you?? My simple observation and input brought out rather unbecoming behavior.
It's fine to have a difference of opinion.
Just don't state your opinions as facts.
Again, no one "attacked" you. We questioned the logic in the information that you presented.0 -
cdstewart51115 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »No we just want to read your scientific peer reviewed studies because we are science people . I have never seen any peer reviewed studies saying our body struggles to assimilate processed foods. Linking studies helps educate people. Making claims without backing them up does not.
Point taken, but the links would not work even if i could. to post copy written material is against the law as well. Only members can access it. I go through so many, that my mistake has been to not notate the sources. This does proves that I should and when I get back to my home computer, I will track a few down to post later this week.
But the main point here is I posed another opinion and the wolves came out to attack. Being a new person here, it certainly does seem it very welcoming or respectful of opinions outside of your own. That in itself is sad enough. Would you attack a Vegan when they say people were not designed to eat meat and it is bad for you?? My simple observation and input brought out rather unbecoming behavior.
Post the title, authors, and name of the journal when you get the chance, then, and I'll look it up when I get to the office. There is nothing illegal about that.0 -
cdstewart51115 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Are your "reputable sources" mercola?
Since I have not heard of that, I would have to say no LOL! HSI is the main source, but there are others.
As in http://hsionline.com/ ? Like, on the 5th Day, God said, "and lo, those artificial sweetners will rend thy flesh and render you to a lower plane. Do no drink of them for they are of the left-hand"?
I must have the abridged version...0 -
cdstewart51115 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »No we just want to read your scientific peer reviewed studies because we are science people . I have never seen any peer reviewed studies saying our body struggles to assimilate processed foods. Linking studies helps educate people. Making claims without backing them up does not.
Point taken, but the links would not work even if i could. to post copy written material is against the law as well. Only members can access it. I go through so many, that my mistake has been to not notate the sources. This does proves that I should and when I get back to my home computer, I will track a few down to post later this week.
But the main point here is I posed another opinion and the wolves came out to attack. Being a new person here, it certainly does seem it very welcoming or respectful of opinions outside of your own. That in itself is sad enough. Would you attack a Vegan when they say people were not designed to eat meat and it is bad for you?? My simple observation and input brought out rather unbecoming behavior.
I didn't see anyone attack anyone in this thread, and I don't see how looking for evidence is unbecoming.
The problem is that these are not opinions - you are presenting your statements as facts, and there just isn't credible evidence that I can find to back them up. If I say I like the taste of Diet Coke and you say you hate it, that's fine - those are opinions. We agree to disagree about the taste of Diet Coke. If there is credible evidence that our bodies struggle to assimilate processed foods, it won't just be present on a secret members-only site. (In my limited access to the information on the site, I came across some pretty shady claims about miracle cancer cures that are definitely not supported by the scientific community.)
I am new to this forum, and one thing I really appreciate about it is the fact that people do approach these subjects so critically. I'm so tired of hearing misinformation about health and fitness from people who have heard it before and pass it along as fact, further confusing matters. This morning our office hosted a representative from our fitness centre to talk to us about healthy eating, and the incorrect information she presented was killing me. I really appreciate the healthy debate and different perspectives in here, but it doesn't help the discussion to present statements that are not backed by credible scientific information.0 -
redraidergirl2009 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »No we just want to read your scientific peer reviewed studies because we are science people . I have never seen any peer reviewed studies saying our body struggles to assimilate processed foods. Linking studies helps educate people. Making claims without backing them up does not.
What science do you work in?
I see you are trying to make an ad hominem argument by attempting to attack this person's "credentials" rather than actually providing proof for your own argument. Please link to studies in published journals.
0 -
"Thus, one would ask, “Why is there a need for a comprehensive review of aspartame safety data at this point in
time?” Questions about its safety continue to be raised by a few individuals. Safety issues long ago resolved to the
satisfaction of regulatory agencies and expert committees are today resurrected by some as if new. Early on these
issues were based on scientific hypothesis, misinterpretation of data, and/or anecdotal reports of adverse health
effects. Recently spurious and imaginative, hypothetical questions that are lacking even anecdotal support or a
logical scientific rationale have compounded these issues. Given the extensive safety database and many years
of safe human exposure, the continuing debate about aspartame is most unusual."
http://seriecientifica.org/sites/default/files/scl_enc_butchko.pdf0 -
I should mention that even though I don't work in science I have worked in education and have 2 university degrees plus some courses I took for fun ( including some sciences and medical ethics) so I know how to read and understand studies. I have learnt how you need to provide proof when making claims from medical ethics and I have learnt that making unsubstantiated claims without backing them up from my studies in education and ethics.
I am also chronically ill so I read all of the research that comes out on my disease and like to be well informed instead of blindly believing what others tell me.
I have also participated in a double blind placebo controlled clinical drug study so I have some experience in what takes place in scientific studies.0 -
I don't know about attack, but I'd rather strongly disagree with them just using the term designed because I wasn't designed. Once they properly wanted to discuss adapted, I'd say humans are rather unique in having an artificial digestive system that can start the process miles away from them, which renders comparisons between carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, and frugivores a bit of an odd comparison to try to make.
Heck, I would agree with you on that. God instituted meat sacrifices with the Israelites, so that can't be right. LOL! In actuality, the vegan comment: that is what I hear from my vegan friends, so it really is some people's stance.0 -
Anything 'diet ' is full of sugar replacements which aren't good for us if we can believe all we read ... I can't see what the pull is of any fizzy drink tbh - give me ice cold water any day
0 -
redraidergirl2009 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »No we just want to read your scientific peer reviewed studies because we are science people . I have never seen any peer reviewed studies saying our body struggles to assimilate processed foods. Linking studies helps educate people. Making claims without backing them up does not.
What science do you work in?
I'll play. I work in statistics. I consult on projects whose topics are in the fields of Education, Nursing, Hospitality, Industrial/Organizational Psychology, and Criminology, among others. I am currently working on a project funded by an NSF grant; that research will be presented at the annual conference in Washington DC this summer.
How about you? What science do you work in?0 -
RunRutheeRun wrote: »Anything 'diet ' is full of sugar replacements which aren't good for us if we can believe all we read ... I can't see what the pull is of any fizzy drink tbh - give me ice cold water any day
Believe what exactly?
"Thus, one would ask, “Why is there a need for a comprehensive review of aspartame safety data at this point in
time?” Questions about its safety continue to be raised by a few individuals. Safety issues long ago resolved to the
satisfaction of regulatory agencies and expert committees are today resurrected by some as if new. Early on these
issues were based on scientific hypothesis, misinterpretation of data, and/or anecdotal reports of adverse health
effects. Recently spurious and imaginative, hypothetical questions that are lacking even anecdotal support or a
logical scientific rationale have compounded these issues. Given the extensive safety database and many years
of safe human exposure, the continuing debate about aspartame is most unusual."
http://seriecientifica.org/sites/default/files/scl_enc_butchko.pdf0 -
Not a great resource for good information. Googlefu seems to get people to think that every thing is legit on the internet.KSween2016 wrote: »http://m.huffpost.com/us/news/diet-soda-health-risks
Very bad for your health and cancer causing! Here is an article from Huffpost with more information!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
We'll take our chances. Post some PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES to support your stance and let's review it. If not, then you're just posting anecdotal opinions, which isn't really recognized by the science community as a whole.cdstewart51115 wrote: »Reading scientific studies in a member's only database is where I get it from. However, if you do some simple google searches to reputable organizations that test these theories, you might learn quite a lot about the garbage we are being told is 'ok' or 'good' for us. However, that being said, many people will defend their beliefs to the death so I just throw out the logical and scientific information so other's can make their own educated decisions. If I give out links, it lessens the educational search for themselves. If people really don't care about fact and science, then to each his own. I really don't think challenging and debunking another person's opinions really helps anyone.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
No that would be debate. Present your side with evidence to support it and opposition will do the same..............cordially.redraidergirl2009 wrote: »internet fight -shots fired-
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Chemically laden? You mean like an apple or banana (which has WAY MORE chemicals molecularly bonded than aspartame). Realize that if you're going to make a statement that isn't true on a public forum, be prepared for opposition to refute it. It's important in THIS community that correct information is passed on and not information that lacks evidence to support it.cdstewart51115 wrote: »SMH, i was not specifically pinpointing artificial sweeteners. and for clarification, I do not google search. I wonder why there are always people preferring to tear each other down because we think differently. If it is not made from nature without being processed to death, our bodies struggle to assimilate it. Did I say, don't drink it? Nope, I said it was a chemical laden and not good for us. Lord have mercy, y'all need to step back just a bit. Is this really how this forum works??
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
An "alternative medicine" site isn't a verifiable resource for evidence. It's like using the bible to prove evolution.cdstewart51115 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Are your "reputable sources" mercola?
Since I have not heard of that, I would have to say no LOL! HSI is the main source, but there are others.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »cdstewart51115 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Are your "reputable sources" mercola?
Since I have not heard of that, I would have to say no LOL! HSI is the main source, but there are others.
As in http://hsionline.com/ ? Like, on the 5th Day, God said, "and lo, those artificial sweetners will rend thy flesh and render you to a lower plane. Do no drink of them for they are of the left-hand"?
I must have the abridged version...
I don't know. I saw the page when looking for HSI, and it opens with claims that 3 words in the Bible tell how to cure cancer. That seemed like a whole lot of nope to me.0 -
cdstewart51115 wrote: »SMH, i was not specifically pinpointing artificial sweeteners. and for clarification, I do not google search. I wonder why there are always people preferring to tear each other down because we think differently. If it is not made from nature without being processed to death, our bodies struggle to assimilate it. Did I say, don't drink it? Nope, I said it was a chemical laden and not good for us. Lord have mercy, y'all need to step back just a bit. Is this really how this forum works??
Pretty much the way this forum works is that if you drag out trash and present it as fact, you're going to get called on it. Opinions are a different matter, but you're not presenting your discussion points as opinions, you're stating them as scientific fact. I've seen you do it in two threads so far and you've been burned to the ground in both of them. That's what happens.
Citing your sources as some secret squirrel members-only database that nobody else could possibly have access to doesn't go any further in establishing credibility either. I could just as easily say I have scientific proof that Elvis and Bigfoot are eating peanut butter and banana sandwiches together in Atlantis, but the studies are in this super-secret database that I can't share with anybody and citing them would be a copyright violation, so you'll just have to take my word for it..0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »cdstewart51115 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Are your "reputable sources" mercola?
Since I have not heard of that, I would have to say no LOL! HSI is the main source, but there are others.
As in http://hsionline.com/ ? Like, on the 5th Day, God said, "and lo, those artificial sweetners will rend thy flesh and render you to a lower plane. Do no drink of them for they are of the left-hand"?
I must have the abridged version...
I don't know. I saw the page when looking for HSI, and it opens with claims that 3 words in the Bible tell how to cure cancer. That seemed like a whole lot of nope to me.
Wow.0 -
Chemically laden? You mean like an apple or banana (which has WAY MORE chemicals molecularly bonded than aspartame). Realize that if you're going to make a statement that isn't true on a public forum, be prepared for opposition to refute it. It's important in THIS community that correct information is passed on and not information that lacks evidence to support it.cdstewart51115 wrote: »SMH, i was not specifically pinpointing artificial sweeteners. and for clarification, I do not google search. I wonder why there are always people preferring to tear each other down because we think differently. If it is not made from nature without being processed to death, our bodies struggle to assimilate it. Did I say, don't drink it? Nope, I said it was a chemical laden and not good for us. Lord have mercy, y'all need to step back just a bit. Is this really how this forum works??
O noes, the chemi-kills!!!:
0
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