Sugar-free drinks: the good, the bad and the 'we should be aware'!
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 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
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions