diet pop?
Options
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »daynaxxanne wrote: »Diet soda has things added to it so that suddenly the calories are lower and its supposedly "better" for you. However some of the things in diet soda are actually worse for your body. Things like aspartame, used in many diet sodas and things like gum, are actually more harmful to your body than sugar is. Aspartame was originally developed as a drug but when they realized it tasted sweet, they skipped some steps and started selling it as a food item. That being said, soda is bad for you diet or not.
Nope.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1
Yes, it is bad for some people.
People with PKU, who because of the PKU also cannot eat all that much protein because phenylanine is an amino acid found in most protein sources. Is protein bad?
Then call it something else than "bad". For example "That thing, that causes health issues for some people"0 -
cdstewart51115 wrote: »I really have better things to do than debate and just this proves the general American population isn't ready to hear these things until they are diagnosed with a disease or ailment that could have been avoided.
If someone walked up to you and said "studies have proven that eating apples causes heart failure in 20 years, I won't tell you what studies but trust me that they exist" would you immediately believe that person? Would you ask for where they got that information and look at it with a critical eye? What if, when you questioned that claim, they said "Clearly you're not ready to hear the truth, why are you being so rude? Just believe me!"
In reality, you should be pleased that people are choosing to seek out the truth instead of just believing you blindly because you say what you "know" is the truth. If they believed that, how many other things would they believe because js45texas posted a comment on the internet about it?0 -
TheBlindTiger wrote: »cdstewart51115 wrote: »
Lol - typical and predictable.
Yes y'all are
The first point of quality of food vs calories in/out is in MFP's own blog.. https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/2-science-backed-strategies-to-avoid-long-term-weight-gain/ See if you can you access it since it is a Premium member's perk.
Another talk about pesticide, artificial and chemical attributes of poor health (this is relative to children in the original article) gave these studies references.
• "Pediatrics"; Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Urinary Metabolites of Organophosphate Pesticides; Maryse Bouchard, et al.; Jun 2010
• "Environmental Health Perspectives"; Dietary Intake and Its Contribution to Longitudinal Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure in Urban/Suburban Children; Chensheng Lu, et al.; Apr 2008
• "American Journal of Epidemiology"; Parkinson's Disease and Residential Exposure to Maneb and Paraquat from Agricultural Applications in the Central Valley of California; Sadie Costello, et al.; Apr 15 2009
• "International Journal of Cancer"; Processed Meat Consumption, Dietary Nitrosamines and Stomach Cancer Risk in a Cohort of Swedish Women; Susanna Larsson, et al.; Aug 15 2006
• Center For Science in the Public Interest; Fda Urged to Prohibit Carcinogenic "Caramel Coloring"; February 16 2011
I really have better things to do than debate and just this proves the general American population isn't ready to hear these things until they are diagnosed with a disease or ailment that could have been avoided. No harm, no foul on my part. I don't get all up in arms and pissed to the point of hateful attacks and snarky comments on someone for their input. I didn't condemn anyone for choosing it either. Oh and on the ridiculous comment about a banana having chemicals in the breakdown...someone had to name the compositions. I don't recall a scientist being able to create a banana from chemicals only. I sure as heck wouldn't eat it if they could.
For those that have 'nutrition' certification should really know better and be an example of a student always willing to learn for the benefit of the public. Science is not perfect and studies are continually recanted as progress is made. If I am proven wrong on any stance, that is fine...I will continue to side on the conservative side of caution. Why? I have watched my mother be sucked into the diabetic and heart disease 'treatment' propaganda; by taking their pills and eat all the processed crap they pushed out as 'diabetic friendly' and sugar-free. Twelve years ago, she died on the operating table, with surgeons trying to fix her heart. My father has battled the same ailment as well as colon cancer. Both of which he beat and still living at 80. So don't even tell me my views are bull@*^$. I have nothing more to say and thanks for welcoming me (not) into the community. I will not be wasting my time here. And if you construe this as mad as hell, it isn't; but I am passionate about what I (and my children) have lost...Mom/Grammy. I can't get her back and I can't turn back time. If you still have yours, please go tell her you love her. Then feed her a natural, organic meal
All right, I'll bite.
First article is about Glycemic Load and protein intake of various kinds and their association with weight loss. The words "Soda" or "pop" do not occur in the article at all, and only in the comments below. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Second study - A study on organophosphate exposure on incidence of ADHD in children 8-15 years of age. Again, the words "soda" or "pop" were not mentioned in the entirety. The study did not relate to any artificial sweeteners and instead measured detected organophosphate levels, specifically in frozen fruit and vegetables. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Third study - Yet another study on organophosphate exposure and its effects on children, this one specifically urban and suburban. Basically, the conclusions were that the major exposure of organophosphates in children were through dietary intake and that an organic, seasonal diet of fresh fruits and vegetables lowered urinary metabolites of organophosphates. Again, no mention of diet sodas or artificial sweeteners. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Fourth study - a study of the effect of specific fungicide and pesticide exposure on the prevalence of parkinson's disease, specifically on the region of the California Central Valley. This study has more to do with the prevalence of parkinson's in rural farmers and their children in that specific geographical area. No mention of artificial sweeteners or soda. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Fifth study - A study on somach cancer relation to processed meat consumption in Swedish women. Diet soda is not processed meat. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Sixth study - Tangentially related, in that it discusses carcinogenic compounds possibly present in "caramel coloring" used in sodas. Further research reveals the following quote from the FDA:
"FDA spokesman Douglas Karas wrote in a statement that the FDA is currently reviewing the CSPI petition, but 'it is important to understand that a consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents.'"
The study conducted by the NTP showed inconclusive on rats, and an increase in certain lung tumors in mice, both conducted at levels well exceeding anything a human would reasonably consume. The European Food Safety Authority has also determined that there is no cancer risk related with currently feasible caramel coloring consumption.
So...Out of six studies, only one was even close to related to this topic, and it concerns intake of a certain chemical hundreds of times greater than is realistic for human consumption. Nice try, thanks for playing.
0 -
TheBlindTiger wrote: »"FDA spokesman Douglas Karas wrote in a statement that the FDA is currently reviewing the CSPI petition, but 'it is important to understand that a consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents.'"
So if I'm currently drinking a thousand cans of soda every day, should I reduce my intake?0 -
missyfitz1 wrote: »TheBlindTiger wrote: »"FDA spokesman Douglas Karas wrote in a statement that the FDA is currently reviewing the CSPI petition, but 'it is important to understand that a consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents.'"
So if I'm currently drinking a thousand cans of soda every day, should I reduce my intake?
I'd think you'd be okay as long as you keep it in the 900s.
0 -
missyfitz1 wrote: »TheBlindTiger wrote: »"FDA spokesman Douglas Karas wrote in a statement that the FDA is currently reviewing the CSPI petition, but 'it is important to understand that a consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents.'"
So if I'm currently drinking a thousand cans of soda every day, should I reduce my intake?
Not for caramel color reasons but rather the imminent death of hyponatremia, ruptured stomach and/or bladder.0 -
missyfitz1 wrote: »TheBlindTiger wrote: »"FDA spokesman Douglas Karas wrote in a statement that the FDA is currently reviewing the CSPI petition, but 'it is important to understand that a consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents.'"
So if I'm currently drinking a thousand cans of soda every day, should I reduce my intake?
That would be on the order of 12,000 oz of fluid a day. On the bright side, diet soda does have sodium, so you might be at less of a risk of hyponatremia, but that's one hell of a lot of fluid in a day.0 -
daynaxxanne wrote: »Diet soda has things added to it so that suddenly the calories are lower and its supposedly "better" for you. However some of the things in diet soda are actually worse for your body. Things like aspartame, used in many diet sodas and things like gum, are actually more harmful to your body than sugar is. Aspartame was originally developed as a drug but when they realized it tasted sweet, they skipped some steps and started selling it as a food item. That being said, soda is bad for you diet or not.
LOLOL. Actually, diet soda has things NOT added to it (that would be sugar), so that suddenly the calories are lower. You don't make foods/drinks less calorific by adding things to them.
As for aspartame, the link to actual scientific discussion of it has already been posted and most people don't bother to click links when their mind is already made up anyway.0 -
Your 'science' vs, you know, real science.....cdstewart51115 wrote: »I will stick to my knowledge of science and beliefs
0 -
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/artificial-sweeteners/art-20046936
Here is an article from the Mayo Clinic on artificial Sweeteners. I think most people who have a problem with Diet Soda, would say its because of the artificial sweeteners. I have no problems with them. I know in some people, they can cause headaches, and stomach upset but I say if they don't bother you go for it. I drink Diet Coke all the time.0 -
TheBlindTiger wrote: »cdstewart51115 wrote: »
Lol - typical and predictable.
Yes y'all are The first point of quality of food vs calories in/out is in MFP's own blog.. https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/2-science-backed-strategies-to-avoid-long-term-weight-gain/ See if you can you access it since it is a Premium member's perk.
Another talk about pesticide, artificial and chemical attributes of poor health (this is relative to children in the original article) gave these studies references.
• "Pediatrics"; Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Urinary Metabolites of Organophosphate Pesticides; Maryse Bouchard, et al.; Jun 2010
• "Environmental Health Perspectives"; Dietary Intake and Its Contribution to Longitudinal Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure in Urban/Suburban Children; Chensheng Lu, et al.; Apr 2008
• "American Journal of Epidemiology"; Parkinson's Disease and Residential Exposure to Maneb and Paraquat from Agricultural Applications in the Central Valley of California; Sadie Costello, et al.; Apr 15 2009
• "International Journal of Cancer"; Processed Meat Consumption, Dietary Nitrosamines and Stomach Cancer Risk in a Cohort of Swedish Women; Susanna Larsson, et al.; Aug 15 2006
• Center For Science in the Public Interest; Fda Urged to Prohibit Carcinogenic "Caramel Coloring"; February 16 2011
I really have better things to do than debate and just this proves the general American population isn't ready to hear these things until they are diagnosed with a disease or ailment that could have been avoided. No harm, no foul on my part. I don't get all up in arms and pissed to the point of hateful attacks and snarky comments on someone for their input. I didn't condemn anyone for choosing it either. Oh and on the ridiculous comment about a banana having chemicals in the breakdown...someone had to name the compositions. I don't recall a scientist being able to create a banana from chemicals only. I sure as heck wouldn't eat it if they could.
For those that have 'nutrition' certification should really know better and be an example of a student always willing to learn for the benefit of the public. Science is not perfect and studies are continually recanted as progress is made. If I am proven wrong on any stance, that is fine...I will continue to side on the conservative side of caution. Why? I have watched my mother be sucked into the diabetic and heart disease 'treatment' propaganda; by taking their pills and eat all the processed crap they pushed out as 'diabetic friendly' and sugar-free. Twelve years ago, she died on the operating table, with surgeons trying to fix her heart. My father has battled the same ailment as well as colon cancer. Both of which he beat and still living at 80. So don't even tell me my views are bull@*^$. I have nothing more to say and thanks for welcoming me (not) into the community. I will not be wasting my time here. And if you construe this as mad as hell, it isn't; but I am passionate about what I (and my children) have lost...Mom/Grammy. I can't get her back and I can't turn back time. If you still have yours, please go tell her you love her. Then feed her a natural, organic meal
All right, I'll bite.
First article is about Glycemic Load and protein intake of various kinds and their association with weight loss. The words "Soda" or "pop" do not occur in the article at all, and only in the comments below. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Second study - A study on organophosphate exposure on incidence of ADHD in children 8-15 years of age. Again, the words "soda" or "pop" were not mentioned in the entirety. The study did not relate to any artificial sweeteners and instead measured detected organophosphate levels, specifically in frozen fruit and vegetables. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Third study - Yet another study on organophosphate exposure and its effects on children, this one specifically urban and suburban. Basically, the conclusions were that the major exposure of organophosphates in children were through dietary intake and that an organic, seasonal diet of fresh fruits and vegetables lowered urinary metabolites of organophosphates. Again, no mention of diet sodas or artificial sweeteners. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Fourth study - a study of the effect of specific fungicide and pesticide exposure on the prevalence of parkinson's disease, specifically on the region of the California Central Valley. This study has more to do with the prevalence of parkinson's in rural farmers and their children in that specific geographical area. No mention of artificial sweeteners or soda. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Fifth study - A study on somach cancer relation to processed meat consumption in Swedish women. Diet soda is not processed meat. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Sixth study - Tangentially related, in that it discusses carcinogenic compounds possibly present in "caramel coloring" used in sodas. Further research reveals the following quote from the FDA:
"FDA spokesman Douglas Karas wrote in a statement that the FDA is currently reviewing the CSPI petition, but 'it is important to understand that a consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents.'"
The study conducted by the NTP showed inconclusive on rats, and an increase in certain lung tumors in mice, both conducted at levels well exceeding anything a human would reasonably consume. The European Food Safety Authority has also determined that there is no cancer risk related with currently feasible caramel coloring consumption.
So...Out of six studies, only one was even close to related to this topic, and it concerns intake of a certain chemical hundreds of times greater than is realistic for human consumption. Nice try, thanks for playing.
Strong 3rd post.0 -
MommyL2015 wrote: »missyfitz1 wrote: »TheBlindTiger wrote: »"FDA spokesman Douglas Karas wrote in a statement that the FDA is currently reviewing the CSPI petition, but 'it is important to understand that a consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents.'"
So if I'm currently drinking a thousand cans of soda every day, should I reduce my intake?
I'd think you'd be okay as long as you keep it in the 900s.
Shoot, my consumption is over 9,000.0 -
MommyL2015 wrote: »missyfitz1 wrote: »TheBlindTiger wrote: »"FDA spokesman Douglas Karas wrote in a statement that the FDA is currently reviewing the CSPI petition, but 'it is important to understand that a consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents.'"
So if I'm currently drinking a thousand cans of soda every day, should I reduce my intake?
I'd think you'd be okay as long as you keep it in the 900s.
Shoot, my consumption is over 9,000.
I even put aspartame in my coffee.
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.
http://www.reviewopedia.com/health-sciences-institute-reviews0 -
There is a mass media scare on artificial sweeteners, but as an epidemiologist working in diet and chronic disease etiology (because someone wanted to know what 'science' people work in), I can say there is a lot of media misinterpretation of the current science on these subjects.
Moreover, many people put artificial sweeteners in one category when they are chemically quite different so any blanket 'artificial sweeteners cause...' statement is not valid.
While some large scale cohort studies have shown that a correlation between obesity or cvd and diet drinks--this is a 'chicken or the egg' argument, because you can reasonably argue that obesity or other risk factors (like diabetes or higher fasting glucose) came first and led to an increase in diet drink consumption.
Many animal models have demonized artificial sweeteners in rats and mice and these results are published and scare people, but animal studies can't be extrapolated to humans and often times the dosage equivalent isn't plausible. An example is when saccharin caused bladder cancer in laboratory rats so there were warning labels before we recognized this relationship didn't exist in humans.
There are some really interesting studies showing that there may be evidence that some sweeteners have antibacterial properties and therefore may alter the microbiota in the gut. While this is interesting and should be studied, we need to know how or what this altering actually causes before we incite panic.
A past professor of mine is working on research about insulin response to different sweeteners and their results are inconclusive.
People need to start asking themselves more questions even with peer reviewed scientific studies. We are finding more and more that the results of many of these studies cannot be replicated. These tests allow for error, diet is immensely hard to assess in real life and most things we are looking for are not attributable to one variable, but multiple.
I say drink your diet soda until there is evidence from multiple sources that suggests the specific sweetener you are consuming, at the amount you are consuming, is harmful
I read this too. Well written & informative. Thank you.
0 -
There is a mass media scare on artificial sweeteners, but as an epidemiologist working in diet and chronic disease etiology (because someone wanted to know what 'science' people work in), I can say there is a lot of media misinterpretation of the current science on these subjects.
Moreover, many people put artificial sweeteners in one category when they are chemically quite different so any blanket 'artificial sweeteners cause...' statement is not valid.
While some large scale cohort studies have shown that a correlation between obesity or cvd and diet drinks--this is a 'chicken or the egg' argument, because you can reasonably argue that obesity or other risk factors (like diabetes or higher fasting glucose) came first and led to an increase in diet drink consumption.
Many animal models have demonized artificial sweeteners in rats and mice and these results are published and scare people, but animal studies can't be extrapolated to humans and often times the dosage equivalent isn't plausible. An example is when saccharin caused bladder cancer in laboratory rats so there were warning labels before we recognized this relationship didn't exist in humans.
There are some really interesting studies showing that there may be evidence that some sweeteners have antibacterial properties and therefore may alter the microbiota in the gut. While this is interesting and should be studied, we need to know how or what this altering actually causes before we incite panic.
A past professor of mine is working on research about insulin response to different sweeteners and their results are inconclusive.
People need to start asking themselves more questions even with peer reviewed scientific studies. We are finding more and more that the results of many of these studies cannot be replicated. These tests allow for error, diet is immensely hard to assess in real life and most things we are looking for are not attributable to one variable, but multiple.
I say drink your diet soda until there is evidence from multiple sources that suggests the specific sweetener you are consuming, at the amount you are consuming, is harmful
Thank you for this. Maybe a few people will listen. Haha ... I've always been an optimist.0 -
TheBlindTiger wrote: »cdstewart51115 wrote: »
Lol - typical and predictable.
Yes y'all are The first point of quality of food vs calories in/out is in MFP's own blog.. https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/2-science-backed-strategies-to-avoid-long-term-weight-gain/ See if you can you access it since it is a Premium member's perk.
Another talk about pesticide, artificial and chemical attributes of poor health (this is relative to children in the original article) gave these studies references.
• "Pediatrics"; Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Urinary Metabolites of Organophosphate Pesticides; Maryse Bouchard, et al.; Jun 2010
• "Environmental Health Perspectives"; Dietary Intake and Its Contribution to Longitudinal Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure in Urban/Suburban Children; Chensheng Lu, et al.; Apr 2008
• "American Journal of Epidemiology"; Parkinson's Disease and Residential Exposure to Maneb and Paraquat from Agricultural Applications in the Central Valley of California; Sadie Costello, et al.; Apr 15 2009
• "International Journal of Cancer"; Processed Meat Consumption, Dietary Nitrosamines and Stomach Cancer Risk in a Cohort of Swedish Women; Susanna Larsson, et al.; Aug 15 2006
• Center For Science in the Public Interest; Fda Urged to Prohibit Carcinogenic "Caramel Coloring"; February 16 2011
I really have better things to do than debate and just this proves the general American population isn't ready to hear these things until they are diagnosed with a disease or ailment that could have been avoided. No harm, no foul on my part. I don't get all up in arms and pissed to the point of hateful attacks and snarky comments on someone for their input. I didn't condemn anyone for choosing it either. Oh and on the ridiculous comment about a banana having chemicals in the breakdown...someone had to name the compositions. I don't recall a scientist being able to create a banana from chemicals only. I sure as heck wouldn't eat it if they could.
For those that have 'nutrition' certification should really know better and be an example of a student always willing to learn for the benefit of the public. Science is not perfect and studies are continually recanted as progress is made. If I am proven wrong on any stance, that is fine...I will continue to side on the conservative side of caution. Why? I have watched my mother be sucked into the diabetic and heart disease 'treatment' propaganda; by taking their pills and eat all the processed crap they pushed out as 'diabetic friendly' and sugar-free. Twelve years ago, she died on the operating table, with surgeons trying to fix her heart. My father has battled the same ailment as well as colon cancer. Both of which he beat and still living at 80. So don't even tell me my views are bull@*^$. I have nothing more to say and thanks for welcoming me (not) into the community. I will not be wasting my time here. And if you construe this as mad as hell, it isn't; but I am passionate about what I (and my children) have lost...Mom/Grammy. I can't get her back and I can't turn back time. If you still have yours, please go tell her you love her. Then feed her a natural, organic meal
All right, I'll bite.
First article is about Glycemic Load and protein intake of various kinds and their association with weight loss. The words "Soda" or "pop" do not occur in the article at all, and only in the comments below. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Second study - A study on organophosphate exposure on incidence of ADHD in children 8-15 years of age. Again, the words "soda" or "pop" were not mentioned in the entirety. The study did not relate to any artificial sweeteners and instead measured detected organophosphate levels, specifically in frozen fruit and vegetables. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Third study - Yet another study on organophosphate exposure and its effects on children, this one specifically urban and suburban. Basically, the conclusions were that the major exposure of organophosphates in children were through dietary intake and that an organic, seasonal diet of fresh fruits and vegetables lowered urinary metabolites of organophosphates. Again, no mention of diet sodas or artificial sweeteners. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Fourth study - a study of the effect of specific fungicide and pesticide exposure on the prevalence of parkinson's disease, specifically on the region of the California Central Valley. This study has more to do with the prevalence of parkinson's in rural farmers and their children in that specific geographical area. No mention of artificial sweeteners or soda. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Fifth study - A study on somach cancer relation to processed meat consumption in Swedish women. Diet soda is not processed meat. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Sixth study - Tangentially related, in that it discusses carcinogenic compounds possibly present in "caramel coloring" used in sodas. Further research reveals the following quote from the FDA:
"FDA spokesman Douglas Karas wrote in a statement that the FDA is currently reviewing the CSPI petition, but 'it is important to understand that a consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents.'"
The study conducted by the NTP showed inconclusive on rats, and an increase in certain lung tumors in mice, both conducted at levels well exceeding anything a human would reasonably consume. The European Food Safety Authority has also determined that there is no cancer risk related with currently feasible caramel coloring consumption.
So...Out of six studies, only one was even close to related to this topic, and it concerns intake of a certain chemical hundreds of times greater than is realistic for human consumption. Nice try, thanks for playing.
Thank you.
Also, to whomever claimed they couldn't share sources because of copyright, it is perfectly acceptable to quote a portion of peer-reviewed studies (articles) as long as suitable citation is given.0 -
I'd like to show you my source...
0 -
TheBlindTiger wrote: »cdstewart51115 wrote: »
Lol - typical and predictable.
Yes y'all are The first point of quality of food vs calories in/out is in MFP's own blog.. https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/2-science-backed-strategies-to-avoid-long-term-weight-gain/ See if you can you access it since it is a Premium member's perk.
Another talk about pesticide, artificial and chemical attributes of poor health (this is relative to children in the original article) gave these studies references.
• "Pediatrics"; Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Urinary Metabolites of Organophosphate Pesticides; Maryse Bouchard, et al.; Jun 2010
• "Environmental Health Perspectives"; Dietary Intake and Its Contribution to Longitudinal Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure in Urban/Suburban Children; Chensheng Lu, et al.; Apr 2008
• "American Journal of Epidemiology"; Parkinson's Disease and Residential Exposure to Maneb and Paraquat from Agricultural Applications in the Central Valley of California; Sadie Costello, et al.; Apr 15 2009
• "International Journal of Cancer"; Processed Meat Consumption, Dietary Nitrosamines and Stomach Cancer Risk in a Cohort of Swedish Women; Susanna Larsson, et al.; Aug 15 2006
• Center For Science in the Public Interest; Fda Urged to Prohibit Carcinogenic "Caramel Coloring"; February 16 2011
I really have better things to do than debate and just this proves the general American population isn't ready to hear these things until they are diagnosed with a disease or ailment that could have been avoided. No harm, no foul on my part. I don't get all up in arms and pissed to the point of hateful attacks and snarky comments on someone for their input. I didn't condemn anyone for choosing it either. Oh and on the ridiculous comment about a banana having chemicals in the breakdown...someone had to name the compositions. I don't recall a scientist being able to create a banana from chemicals only. I sure as heck wouldn't eat it if they could.
For those that have 'nutrition' certification should really know better and be an example of a student always willing to learn for the benefit of the public. Science is not perfect and studies are continually recanted as progress is made. If I am proven wrong on any stance, that is fine...I will continue to side on the conservative side of caution. Why? I have watched my mother be sucked into the diabetic and heart disease 'treatment' propaganda; by taking their pills and eat all the processed crap they pushed out as 'diabetic friendly' and sugar-free. Twelve years ago, she died on the operating table, with surgeons trying to fix her heart. My father has battled the same ailment as well as colon cancer. Both of which he beat and still living at 80. So don't even tell me my views are bull@*^$. I have nothing more to say and thanks for welcoming me (not) into the community. I will not be wasting my time here. And if you construe this as mad as hell, it isn't; but I am passionate about what I (and my children) have lost...Mom/Grammy. I can't get her back and I can't turn back time. If you still have yours, please go tell her you love her. Then feed her a natural, organic meal
All right, I'll bite.
First article is about Glycemic Load and protein intake of various kinds and their association with weight loss. The words "Soda" or "pop" do not occur in the article at all, and only in the comments below. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Second study - A study on organophosphate exposure on incidence of ADHD in children 8-15 years of age. Again, the words "soda" or "pop" were not mentioned in the entirety. The study did not relate to any artificial sweeteners and instead measured detected organophosphate levels, specifically in frozen fruit and vegetables. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Third study - Yet another study on organophosphate exposure and its effects on children, this one specifically urban and suburban. Basically, the conclusions were that the major exposure of organophosphates in children were through dietary intake and that an organic, seasonal diet of fresh fruits and vegetables lowered urinary metabolites of organophosphates. Again, no mention of diet sodas or artificial sweeteners. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Fourth study - a study of the effect of specific fungicide and pesticide exposure on the prevalence of parkinson's disease, specifically on the region of the California Central Valley. This study has more to do with the prevalence of parkinson's in rural farmers and their children in that specific geographical area. No mention of artificial sweeteners or soda. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Fifth study - A study on somach cancer relation to processed meat consumption in Swedish women. Diet soda is not processed meat. Irrelevant to the discussion.
Sixth study - Tangentially related, in that it discusses carcinogenic compounds possibly present in "caramel coloring" used in sodas. Further research reveals the following quote from the FDA:
"FDA spokesman Douglas Karas wrote in a statement that the FDA is currently reviewing the CSPI petition, but 'it is important to understand that a consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents.'"
The study conducted by the NTP showed inconclusive on rats, and an increase in certain lung tumors in mice, both conducted at levels well exceeding anything a human would reasonably consume. The European Food Safety Authority has also determined that there is no cancer risk related with currently feasible caramel coloring consumption.
So...Out of six studies, only one was even close to related to this topic, and it concerns intake of a certain chemical hundreds of times greater than is realistic for human consumption. Nice try, thanks for playing.
Thank you.
Also, to whomever claimed they couldn't share sources because of copyright, it is perfectly acceptable to quote a portion of peer-reviewed studies (articles) as long as suitable citation is given.
Must resist urge to post Iron Man 2 Howard Stark gif.0 -
MommyL2015 wrote: »missyfitz1 wrote: »TheBlindTiger wrote: »"FDA spokesman Douglas Karas wrote in a statement that the FDA is currently reviewing the CSPI petition, but 'it is important to understand that a consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents.'"
So if I'm currently drinking a thousand cans of soda every day, should I reduce my intake?
I'd think you'd be okay as long as you keep it in the 900s.
Shoot, my consumption is over 9,000.
I even put aspartame in my coffee.
Me too! I buy the store-brand of Equal which means it says ASPARTAME in giant letters on the box. My coworker started to give me sh- for it. Was she worried about all the "chemicals"? But the nightly bottle of wine is just fine...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