Sugar-free drinks: the good, the bad and the 'we should be aware'!
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
ronjsteele1 wrote: »Often, being an "extreme researcher" is to your detriment, because it leads you into bad corners of the internet where you read that chocolate makes you lose weight because someone paid a few hundred dollars to put it in a journal somewhere....there will always somewhere be "the other side" supported, for every issue. Especially every health issue. Reading every study as if they're all equally valid and ignoring the lines between mainstream science and fringe is about as helpful as thinking you're near a doctor because you research on WebMD to the extreme.
This is absolutely untrue. If you people think that only "scientists" can do any worthwhile research you are deluded. I hope to God some day your kid's lives don't depend on you being able to "research" according to your standards. My kid is only alive today because of the amount of research we had to do to save his life. I have ZERO (catch those capitals) trust or confidence in someone just because they have MD, or anything else after their name that indicates they have some sort of science background. It was this momma's research that kept her boy alive and today is living a normal life because "science" yahoos didn't have a freakin' clue how to help him.
And to the JA that said "I have nothing," I feel absolutely no inclination to add diddly squat here. I "have" plenty but adding to this will only prolong a thread I have give way too much time to already. I'm well aware of the waste of time it is to try and teach people anything that have no desire to learn or see the other side. What is terribly clear on these boards is anything considered in the alternative realm is suspect and when I enter that realization, I'm just done. Conk yourselves over the head with your "research" because they often come back to say they were wrong - after they've screwed up people's lives, or better yet, people have died. Vioxx anyone?
So y'all drink your nutrasweet and sucralose, etc. and enjoy it. It is a free country (at least for now). But I certainly hope to God if any of you ever have a loved one's life on the line because idiot "researchers" or doctors give up on them that you have more fortitude and open mindedness then you do now.
I'm sorry for what you and your family went through and glad that your loved one is better no.
However, the fact that you are saying that anyone can do research just shows that you don't understand what we are referring to when we ask for research. You are not a researcher. Your MD is not a researcher. What people are referring to are legitimate scientific studies done in controlled settings, with variables normalized as much as possible, with reproducible data, that has been reviewed and approved by other qualified scientists (not affiliated with the original study).
Yes there is a lot of information available online and some of it is compelling, especially when a person is under a tremendous amount of emotional stress from a sick loved one. But reading blog articles or links to postings on various websites and suggesting those alternatives to your medical team are not "doing research".
Again I'm very glad your child is better. That sounds horrific.
0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »Often, being an "extreme researcher" is to your detriment, because it leads you into bad corners of the internet where you read that chocolate makes you lose weight because someone paid a few hundred dollars to put it in a journal somewhere....there will always somewhere be "the other side" supported, for every issue. Especially every health issue. Reading every study as if they're all equally valid and ignoring the lines between mainstream science and fringe is about as helpful as thinking you're near a doctor because you research on WebMD to the extreme.
This is absolutely untrue. If you people think that only "scientists" can do any worthwhile research you are deluded. I hope to God some day your kid's lives don't depend on you being able to "research" according to your standards. My kid is only alive today because of the amount of research we had to do to save his life. I have ZERO (catch those capitals) trust or confidence in someone just because they have MD, or anything else after their name that indicates they have some sort of science background. It was this momma's research that kept her boy alive and today is living a normal life because "science" yahoos didn't have a freakin' clue how to help him.
And to the JA that said "I have nothing," I feel absolutely no inclination to add diddly squat here. I "have" plenty but adding to this will only prolong a thread I have give way too much time to already. I'm well aware of the waste of time it is to try and teach people anything that have no desire to learn or see the other side. What is terribly clear on these boards is anything considered in the alternative realm is suspect and when I enter that realization, I'm just done. Conk yourselves over the head with your "research" because they often come back to say they were wrong - after they've screwed up people's lives, or better yet, people have died. Vioxx anyone?
So y'all drink your nutrasweet and sucralose, etc. and enjoy it. It is a free country (at least for now). But I certainly hope to God if any of you ever have a loved one's life on the line because idiot "researchers" or doctors give up on them that you have more fortitude and open mindedness then you do now.
You need to cool it with the personal attacks. I disagree with your ideas. I never said a word about your child or said anything that could be a personal attack on you, so please don't go nasty to try to make your point.0 -
This ought to keep you busy enough reading for a few weeks.
http://aspartame.mercola.com/sites/aspartame/studies.aspx (here's pages and pages of studies done - and not by mercola - he just listed them out).
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/06/09/the-end-of-diet-soda-huge-study-links-aspartame-to-these-major-health-problems/
http://www.mpwhi.com/peer_reviewed_research.htm
Nearly every "study" ends with "we need to research more." If there is that much of a question about artificial sweeteners that most of the studies are STILL saying this, it should give someone pause. If they were really that "safe" there would be no continued questions about them.
As with every "study" out there, follow the money. Because in the end, most of the "studies" y'all like to site have someone linked to the industry with skin in the game. There is no objectivity. The same goes for pharmaceuticals. The opposite is true of natural stuff too. Follow the money.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I never said someone was going to die from artificial sweeteners. I wouldn't touch the stuff with a ten foot pole. The risk vs. benefit of them is questionable at best and dangerous/unhealthy at worst. But again, it's a free country. Knock yourself out with them.0
-
You need to cool it with the personal attacks. I disagree with your ideas. I never said a word about your child or said anything that could be a personal attack on you, so please don't go nasty to try to make your point.
Really? Because up until now I'd say I was the one being attacked because of having a differing opinion on this matter. Pretty much seems to me that on these boards anyone that has an alternate view of any sort of health thing is maligned heavily.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
I guess ignorance truly is bliss. I've seen your kind of pseudoscience kill loved ones. Fortunately, the smart ones I love were saved by real doctors. Science is all we have. It's not perfect and our knowledge is ever developing, but God, televangelists, positive energy, cleanses, juicing, eastern "medicine," and the rest of "alternative medicine" are all B.S. If it wasn't then it would just be "medicine." If that's difficult for you to understand then you're part of the problem, and may Darwin have you.
Let's hope your ignorance never catches up with you. You are rude beyond comprehension.
0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
I guess ignorance truly is bliss. I've seen your kind of pseudoscience kill loved ones. Fortunately, the smart ones I love were saved by real doctors. Science is all we have. It's not perfect and our knowledge is ever developing, but God, televangelists, positive energy, cleanses, juicing, eastern "medicine," and the rest of "alternative medicine" are all B.S. If it wasn't then it would just be "medicine." If that's difficult for you to understand then you're part of the problem, and may Darwin have you.
Let's hope your ignorance never catches up with you. You are rude beyond comprehension.
See, I think @sunnybeaches105 was right on. Your kind of thinking is dangerous. It starts innocently enough with a desperate attempt to help a loved one, but it leads to things like bleach enemas to "treat" autism. There's a difference between being a forceful health advocate and completely abandoning all semblances of rationality.0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »
You need to cool it with the personal attacks. I disagree with your ideas. I never said a word about your child or said anything that could be a personal attack on you, so please don't go nasty to try to make your point.
Really? Because up until now I'd say I was the one being attacked because of having a differing opinion on this matter. Pretty much seems to me that on these boards anyone that has an alternate view of any sort of health thing is maligned heavily.
Please point out when I attacked you. I said your stance was harmful/dangerous and anecdotal. I drew a comparison between internet scientists looking up studies and internet doctors looking up medical symptoms. I never spoke once about your child, never called you a name, did not say anything about what this stance says about you. You responded in a nasty, personal manner.
What kind of extreme researcher gets so defensive when her views are legitimately disagreed with?
Edit: I want to add that your personal attacks about trusting doctors for medical issues are legitimately upsetting. You don't know my life. You don't know what I've been through. You have no idea that you're stabbing a knife into a very sensitive personal issue because you want to make a point on an internet forum. Think about your words.0 -
I'm staying away from artificial sweeteners. Drinking sodas isn't important enough to me to wait for more research. I like a glass of wine, or a shot of scotch, and I stop at one.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeteners-may-change-our-gut-bacteria-in-dangerous-ways/0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Personally I try and stay away from anything diet, including artificial sugars, particularly aspartame .
Sure they may be deemed "safe" , but I just can not make myself take the risk, just in case future studies prove the current ones wrong. Something just doesn't sit right with me when it comes to this stuff.
My gut feeling says stay away, it hasn't steered me wrong yet...
Following that logic, how do you eat anything, if you're worried that future studies may prove current ones wrong?0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Personally I try and stay away from anything diet, including artificial sugars, particularly aspartame .
Sure they may be deemed "safe" , but I just can not make myself take the risk, just in case future studies prove the current ones wrong. Something just doesn't sit right with me when it comes to this stuff.
My gut feeling says stay away, it hasn't steered me wrong yet...
Following that logic, how do you eat anything, if you're worried that future studies may prove current ones wrong?
They aren't currently deemed safe. Aspartame and Sucralose are linked to blood cancers. Saccharine is linked to unhealthy changes in gut microbiota. Future research might prove that wrong. I'm not waiting.
*And there isn't much information on ace-K, the sweetener that people rarely talk about.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Personally I try and stay away from anything diet, including artificial sugars, particularly aspartame .
Sure they may be deemed "safe" , but I just can not make myself take the risk, just in case future studies prove the current ones wrong. Something just doesn't sit right with me when it comes to this stuff.
My gut feeling says stay away, it hasn't steered me wrong yet...
Following that logic, how do you eat anything, if you're worried that future studies may prove current ones wrong?
They aren't currently deemed safe. Aspartame and Sucralose are linked to blood cancers. Saccharine is linked to unhealthy changes in gut microbiota. Future research might prove that wrong. I'm not waiting.
And there isn't much information on ace-K.
I just, I mean, I just can't, GWAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1
0 -
I drink two cans of Diet Mt Dew daily plus 3-4 packets of the sugar free powder mixes for water, and I've never had any issue with weight loss. I've heard some people can be sensitive to artificial sweeteners, such as headaches, but I don't buy that it causes weight gain. Some people are even going as far to say aspartame causes cancer. Apparently everything is a cancer causing agent these days.
0 -
lithezebra wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Personally I try and stay away from anything diet, including artificial sugars, particularly aspartame .
Sure they may be deemed "safe" , but I just can not make myself take the risk, just in case future studies prove the current ones wrong. Something just doesn't sit right with me when it comes to this stuff.
My gut feeling says stay away, it hasn't steered me wrong yet...
Following that logic, how do you eat anything, if you're worried that future studies may prove current ones wrong?
They aren't currently deemed safe. Aspartame and Sucralose are linked to blood cancers. Saccharine is linked to unhealthy changes in gut microbiota. Future research might prove that wrong. I'm not waiting.
And there isn't much information on ace-K.
I just, I mean, I just can't, GWAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1
You can't what? Can't read a study?0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »ronjsteele1 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
I guess ignorance truly is bliss. I've seen your kind of pseudoscience kill loved ones. Fortunately, the smart ones I love were saved by real doctors. Science is all we have. It's not perfect and our knowledge is ever developing, but God, televangelists, positive energy, cleanses, juicing, eastern "medicine," and the rest of "alternative medicine" are all B.S. If it wasn't then it would just be "medicine." If that's difficult for you to understand then you're part of the problem, and may Darwin have you.
Let's hope your ignorance never catches up with you. You are rude beyond comprehension.
See, I think @sunnybeaches105 was right on. Your kind of thinking is dangerous. It starts innocently enough with a desperate attempt to help a loved one, but it leads to things like bleach enemas to "treat" autism. There's a difference between being a forceful health advocate and completely abandoning all semblances of rationality.
And the anti-vaccine movement.
There is a massive leap in logic from there being a variance in the quality of M.D.s or scientists not being infallible (which I don't think any reasonable person would argue with) to not trusting experts at all, depending on gurus, and doing one's own "research" (which seems paranoid and laughably self-confident, not to mention dangerous). Unfortunately, this seems to be increasingly common. This is not to say that people shouldn't educate themselves (with evidenced-based information) and ask questions of their doctors, or get second opinions from other real doctors.0 -
There are no studies that show you gain weight from diet zero calorie drinks.. Correlations does not mean causation. You can't eat 3500 calories a day and drink diet cokes to lose weight.0
-
blues4miles wrote: »I twisted my ankle while out for a walk over the weekend. I recommend everyone give up walking. It's just too dangerous. I've since told my family to stop walking and any thread that gets started here on walking I immediately tell them how dangerous it is. There have definitely been a ton of studies/blogs supporting this, I'm just not going to link any. Anyone that disagrees with me or asks me to provide proof I will accuse of being mean.
LOL, I like you.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Personally I try and stay away from anything diet, including artificial sugars, particularly aspartame .
Sure they may be deemed "safe" , but I just can not make myself take the risk, just in case future studies prove the current ones wrong. Something just doesn't sit right with me when it comes to this stuff.
My gut feeling says stay away, it hasn't steered me wrong yet...
If you're applying the precautionary principle to artificial sweetners "because you never know", do you apply it also to known risks? For example, alcohol is a known carcinogen, so do you avoid the risk of developing cancer from ever drinking it?0 -
lithezebra wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Personally I try and stay away from anything diet, including artificial sugars, particularly aspartame .
Sure they may be deemed "safe" , but I just can not make myself take the risk, just in case future studies prove the current ones wrong. Something just doesn't sit right with me when it comes to this stuff.
My gut feeling says stay away, it hasn't steered me wrong yet...
Following that logic, how do you eat anything, if you're worried that future studies may prove current ones wrong?
They aren't currently deemed safe. Aspartame and Sucralose are linked to blood cancers. Saccharine is linked to unhealthy changes in gut microbiota. Future research might prove that wrong. I'm not waiting.
And there isn't much information on ace-K.
I just, I mean, I just can't, GWAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1
You can't what? Can't read a study?
I certainly can. Although the article you posted didn't provide a reference list. It appears the article references a study done on mice, and some small sample size studies that show nothing more than some correlation not implying causation.
Have you read all the studies linked to in this thread, and in the thread that's been linked to?
The American Cancer Society are quite clear on the subject.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame
Do you have anything to refute the following....Studies done in the lab
Many studies have looked for health effects in lab animals fed aspartame, often in doses higher than 4,000 mg/kg per day over their lifetimes. These studies have not found any health problems that are consistently linked with aspartame.
Two studies published by a group of Italian researchers suggested that very high doses of aspartame might increase the risk of some blood-related cancers (leukemias and lymphomas) in rats. However, both the FDA and the EFSA have called these results into question, citing a lack of some important data in the published studies and other concerns.
Studies in people
Most studies in people have not found that aspartame use is linked to an increased risk of cancer.
One early study suggested that an increased rate of brain tumors in the US during the 1980s might have been related to aspartame use. However, according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the increase in brain tumor rates actually began back in the early 1970s, well before aspartame was in use. And most of the increase was seen in people age 70 and older, a group that was not exposed to the highest doses of aspartame, which might also make this link less likely. Other studies have not found an increase in brain tumors related to aspartame use.
In the largest study of this issue, researchers from the NCI looked at cancer rates in more than 500,000 older adults. The study found that, compared to people who did not drink aspartame-containing beverages, those who did drink them did not have an increased risk of lymphomas, leukemias, or brain tumors.
A recent study of more than 125,000 people found a link between consumption of aspartame sweetened soda and the risk of leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma in men, but not in women. Since it also found a link between sugar sweetened soda and lymphoma in men, the researchers concluded that the links they found could be explained by chance.
What expert agencies say
Expert agencies in the United States and elsewhere that have evaluated aspartame have found it safe for use.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the use of aspartame and other artificial sweeteners in the United States. In 2007, the FDA stated:
Considering results from the large number of studies on aspartame's safety, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies, a recently reported large epidemiology study with negative associations between the use of aspartame and the occurrence of tumors, and negative findings from a series of three transgenic mouse assays, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assesses the safety of sweeteners such as aspartame in the European Union. According to a 2009 report from its Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food:
Overall, the Panel concluded, on the basis of all the evidence currently available… that there is no indication of any genotoxic or carcinogenic potential of aspartame and that there is no reason to revise the previously established ADI for aspartame of 40 mg/kg [body weight].
Though research into a possible link between aspartame and cancer continues, these agencies agree that studies done so far have not found such a link.0 -
No, it is the deluded that think they can spend a weekend on GoogleU and then think they are an extreme researcher. Again, 8 years in college learning how to actually conduct research versus a few weekends on GoogleU. The problem is you don't understand science or research so you just go looking for information that agrees with what you already believe and you ignore what is inconvenient to your "truth".ronjsteele1 wrote: »This is absolutely untrue. If you people think that only "scientists" can do any worthwhile research you are deluded.
I would be that JA. The links you posted above is a lot diddly squat, which I will get to shortly. And you still have nothing.ronjsteele1 wrote: »And to the JA that said "I have nothing," I feel absolutely no inclination to add diddly squat here.
Then stop posting on this thread. Problem solved.ronjsteele1 wrote: »I "have" plenty but adding to this will only prolong a thread I have give way too much time to already.
Most of the people on this forum are wiling to learn, the problem is that you add nothing of value, except baseless assertions and rants.ronjsteele1 wrote: »I'm well aware of the waste of time it is to try and teach people anything that have no desire to learn or see the other side.
Anything in the alternative realm should be suspect, it's all based on prescientific ideas and magic. Alternative medicine fails miserably when studied. Should we go back to bloodletting and praying to the god Toth?ronjsteele1 wrote: »What is terribly clear on these boards is anything considered in the alternative realm is suspect and when I enter that realization, I'm just done.
Why would you bring up vioxx in a conversation about artificial sweeteners? Oh, yes, because you have nothing of substance to offer so your only defense then is distraction. Got it.ronjsteele1 wrote: »Vioxx anyone?0 -
No, it is the deluded that think they can spend a weekend on GoogleU and then think they are an extreme researcher. Again, 8 years in college learning how to actually conduct research versus a few weekends on GoogleU. The problem is you don't understand science or research so you just go looking for information that agrees with what you already believe and you ignore what is inconvenient to your "truth".
That and spend their afternoons watching Dr. Oz.
As soon as someone brings out Mercola you've lost me. Seriously - Mercola.
I sure would like to know what the heck is up with the pseudoscience and anti-intellectual thing lately.
0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »This ought to keep you busy enough reading for a few weeks.
http://aspartame.mercola.com/sites/aspartame/studies.aspx (here's pages and pages of studies done - and not by mercola - he just listed them out).
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/06/09/the-end-of-diet-soda-huge-study-links-aspartame-to-these-major-health-problems/
http://www.mpwhi.com/peer_reviewed_research.htm
Nearly every "study" ends with "we need to research more." If there is that much of a question about artificial sweeteners that most of the studies are STILL saying this, it should give someone pause. If they were really that "safe" there would be no continued questions about them.
As with every "study" out there, follow the money. Because in the end, most of the "studies" y'all like to site have someone linked to the industry with skin in the game. There is no objectivity. The same goes for pharmaceuticals. The opposite is true of natural stuff too. Follow the money.
I took a look at the first 10 links from the Mercola website. First of all, Mercola? Is that really where you get you information about health? Explains alot. Anyway here goes:
1) study is from 1970. 1970! And it's mice.
2) tell us what type of study this was?
3) rats
4)rats
5) 32yo study which we can't access. But the title doesn't seem to indicate that it proves your's and Mercola's pet theory.
6) article triesubmission very hard with a weak correlation. Oh, and RATS
7) mice
8) rats
9) in vitro, n = 12. Oh, and read the conclusion, because, as usual with Mercola, he cherry picks.
10) same study as #2. Another tactic with Mercola, repeat the same bad data over and over. And as usual his followers will blindly accept whatever he says. I often wonder if Mercola realizes that humansare not rodents.
So, Instead of the Gish-Gallop, why don't you just post either one or two of what you believe are the most compelling studies showing harmful effects of artificial sweeteners in humans. Not mice or rats. Humans. My guess is you'll have some long ranting post about how you have no time to do that.
So, as I said before, you have nothing.0 -
Edit: I want to add that your personal attacks about trusting doctors for medical issues are legitimately upsetting. You don't know my life. You don't know what I've been through. You have no idea that you're stabbing a knife into a very sensitive personal issue because you want to make a point on an internet forum. Think about your words.
Nor do you know mine or what I've been through. I can say the exact same thing in return here. One thing the internet does not provide is tone of voice or inflection.0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »
Edit: I want to add that your personal attacks about trusting doctors for medical issues are legitimately upsetting. You don't know my life. You don't know what I've been through. You have no idea that you're stabbing a knife into a very sensitive personal issue because you want to make a point on an internet forum. Think about your words.
Nor do you know mine or what I've been through. I can say the exact same thing in return here. One thing the internet does not provide is tone of voice or inflection.
Yes, that's why I didn't say a word about it when disagreeing with your views. You're the one that brought the issue up to attack me with, along with a host of personal attacks. It was cruel and unnecessary and if you actually understand, then you would see that.0 -
John Welk, apparently you didn't want to take the time to read through every single study from the list of peer reviewed studies I posted. They are not all anti-artificial sweetener if you read through them. But then again, I should have known you really didn't want them posted. You just wanted to get your point across. That's fine. you think I have nothing - I think you have nothing. Because I have read through those studies (both pro and con) in making my choices. I could care less if you think Mercola isn't legitimate. I take what he posts/says just like I do any doctor or "scientist." With a grain of salt, comparing to everything else I can find. You don't have to like that, but it takes way more thought and brain power then lazily posting a "study" and saying it's definitive. I won't post one study because in my mind, one study is more of a skew then a conglomerate of studies that show a pattern over and over again. People can tit for tat studies all day long. If someone wants to make an informed decision they will read both sides covering a lot of ground (not one study each) and go from there.
Vioxx? Because it was FDA approved, of course. I mean after tons of animal studies and lying about human study results with vioxx we can trust the FDA with aspartame, right?. That's why I bring up Vioxx. If all one does is look at the history of drugs the FDA has approved and why they have approved them (pharmaceutical conflicts of interest all over that place vs. bad study outcomes) and what they've had to pull from the market, one would wonder why anyone would believe anything they say is "safe" means anything. Personal opinion. Mercola has more credibility then they do as far as I'm concerned (and I wouldn't buy any of his supplements either - follow the money). But the FDA says nutrasweet is safe so surely they're right.....I prefer to keep healthy skepticism on both sides.
We will obviously have to agree to disagree on this issue (and probably every other one relating to health) and that's fine. It's a free country. But you are certainly welcome to read through all of those studies (that you wanted me to post) and see if it adds any question to what you think you already know so strongly. If not, that's a choice you make. No, anything alternative is not suspect. Just because you say so, does not make it so. And vice versa is true too. But given what I've seen in my lifetime I'll hedge my bets on the alternative realm over the medical realm any day. My choice to do so. Enjoy your doctors and drugs......your choice to do so.
And to the person who said something about watching Dr. Oz - I don't and never have. We have no cable and rarely, if ever, watch the tube (is he even on regular TV?). Life is too short and I have way better things to do. You know what they say about assuming......0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »I could care less if you think Mercola isn't legitimate. I take what he posts/says just like I do any doctor or "scientist." .
0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »John Welk, apparently you didn't want to take the time to read through every single study from the list of peer reviewed studies I posted. They are not all anti-artificial sweetener if you read through them. But then again, I should have known you really didn't want them posted. You just wanted to get your point across. That's fine. you think I have nothing - I think you have nothing. Because I have read through those studies (both pro and con) in making my choices. I could care less if you think Mercola isn't legitimate. I take what he posts/says just like I do any doctor or "scientist." With a grain of salt, comparing to everything else I can find. You don't have to like that, but it takes way more thought and brain power then lazily posting a "study" and saying it's definitive. I won't post one study because in my mind, one study is more of a skew then a conglomerate of studies that show a pattern over and over again. People can tit for tat studies all day long. If someone wants to make an informed decision they will read both sides covering a lot of ground (not one study each) and go from there.
Vioxx? Because it was FDA approved, of course. I mean after tons of animal studies and lying about human study results with vioxx we can trust the FDA with aspartame, right?. That's why I bring up Vioxx. If all one does is look at the history of drugs the FDA has approved and why they have approved them (pharmaceutical conflicts of interest all over that place vs. bad study outcomes) and what they've had to pull from the market, one would wonder why anyone would believe anything they say is "safe" means anything. Personal opinion. Mercola has more credibility then they do as far as I'm concerned (and I wouldn't buy any of his supplements either - follow the money). But the FDA says nutrasweet is safe so surely they're right.....I prefer to keep healthy skepticism on both sides.
We will obviously have to agree to disagree on this issue (and probably every other one relating to health) and that's fine. It's a free country. But you are certainly welcome to read through all of those studies (that you wanted me to post) and see if it adds any question to what you think you already know so strongly. If not, that's a choice you make. No, anything alternative is not suspect. Just because you say so, does not make it so. And vice versa is true too. But given what I've seen in my lifetime I'll hedge my bets on the alternative realm over the medical realm any day. My choice to do so. Enjoy your doctors and drugs......your choice to do so.
And to the person who said something about watching Dr. Oz - I don't and never have. We have no cable and rarely, if ever, watch the tube (is he even on regular TV?). Life is too short and I have way better things to do. You know what they say about assuming......
If you took what Mercola said with a grain of salt, you wouldn't be providing his list of (outdated, handpicked) studies in an attempt to prove your point.
If you have a better list, one that isn't curated by someone who thinks sunscreen causes cancer and that AIDS isn't real, feel free to provide it.0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »John Welk, apparently you didn't want to take the time to read through every single study from the list of peer reviewed studies I posted. They are not all anti-artificial sweetener if you read through them. But then again, I should have known you really didn't want them posted. You just wanted to get your point across. That's fine. you think I have nothing - I think you have nothing. Because I have read through those studies (both pro and con) in making my choices. I could care less if you think Mercola isn't legitimate. I take what he posts/says just like I do any doctor or "scientist." With a grain of salt, comparing to everything else I can find. You don't have to like that, but it takes way more thought and brain power then lazily posting a "study" and saying it's definitive. I won't post one study because in my mind, one study is more of a skew then a conglomerate of studies that show a pattern over and over again. People can tit for tat studies all day long. If someone wants to make an informed decision they will read both sides covering a lot of ground (not one study each) and go from there.
Vioxx? Because it was FDA approved, of course. I mean after tons of animal studies and lying about human study results with vioxx we can trust the FDA with aspartame, right?. That's why I bring up Vioxx. If all one does is look at the history of drugs the FDA has approved and why they have approved them (pharmaceutical conflicts of interest all over that place vs. bad study outcomes) and what they've had to pull from the market, one would wonder why anyone would believe anything they say is "safe" means anything. Personal opinion. Mercola has more credibility then they do as far as I'm concerned (and I wouldn't buy any of his supplements either - follow the money). But the FDA says nutrasweet is safe so surely they're right.....I prefer to keep healthy skepticism on both sides.
We will obviously have to agree to disagree on this issue (and probably every other one relating to health) and that's fine. It's a free country. But you are certainly welcome to read through all of those studies (that you wanted me to post) and see if it adds any question to what you think you already know so strongly. If not, that's a choice you make. No, anything alternative is not suspect. Just because you say so, does not make it so. And vice versa is true too. But given what I've seen in my lifetime I'll hedge my bets on the alternative realm over the medical realm any day. My choice to do so. Enjoy your doctors and drugs......your choice to do so.
And to the person who said something about watching Dr. Oz - I don't and never have. We have no cable and rarely, if ever, watch the tube (is he even on regular TV?). Life is too short and I have way better things to do. You know what they say about assuming......
Drugs are tested in a relatively small portion of the human population before getting FDA approval. Very rare but serious side effects are not seen until the product is more widely distributed; it's an inherent problem with the drug approval system, but one without a solution.
That said, artificial sweeteners have been consumed by millions of people for years and years. There are not reports of similar widespread side-effects, and links to cancer are tenuous at best (and that's being very generous).
Comparing artificial sweeteners (since they all seem to be lumped together, even those that have been in general consumption since the 1960s) to a drug that was pulled off the market not long after approval proves how little you know about either the drug approval process or the research regarding artificial sweeteners.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions