Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Sweetener - Good or Bad?
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »I do have a taste for Diet Coke, but I'm trying to stop drinking it because it's sweetened with Aspartame, and it's supposed to be very bad for your insides when it's metabolised. I think the jury is out about Insulin response and Sweeteners, but a lot of main stream diets do say to avoid sweeteners because they `can' stall your progress. Best to try it and make your own mind up.
The jury has already made their verdict, had coffee, got married, built a house, died and their grandchildren are still screaming at the population at large that it's settled.
http://seriecientifica.org/sites/default/files/scl_enc_butchko.pdf
https://examine.com/nutrition/do-artificial-sweeteners-spike-insulin/
I looked at these. The second link didn't say a lot, but the first had over 90 pages. I couldn't help but notice NutraSweet had heir hands all over this one. So that one may have just a smidgen of bias.1 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »GypsyFire65 wrote: »I'm struggling to understand it myself.
Sugar = Bad, Artifical = worse???
I've been using either stevia in the raw, or regular sugar in the raw. I also like raw honey.
Nope. Not true at all.
Totally true depending on whom you ask. I say yes it's worse. The stomach problems and funky neurological side effects do not make artificial sweeteners in any way a good choice for me or my kids. The putrid after taste that doesn't go away for over 2 hours is also a massive annoyance.
Neurological side effects?
And is this something the general population has to worry about, or a select few, who should avoid consuming whatever it is causing their uncommon problem (similar to how someone allergic to peanuts should avoid peanuts)?
Sounds like unnecessary fear mongering to me.
I am not speaking for the population, I am speaking for myself. Hence the words "I say yes it's worse." Not "it's worse for us ALL." I did not attempt to apply this to everyone in any way.1 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I do have a taste for Diet Coke, but I'm trying to stop drinking it because it's sweetened with Aspartame, and it's supposed to be very bad for your insides when it's metabolised. I think the jury is out about Insulin response and Sweeteners, but a lot of main stream diets do say to avoid sweeteners because they `can' stall your progress. Best to try it and make your own mind up.
The jury has already made their verdict, had coffee, got married, built a house, died and their grandchildren are still screaming at the population at large that it's settled.
http://seriecientifica.org/sites/default/files/scl_enc_butchko.pdf
https://examine.com/nutrition/do-artificial-sweeteners-spike-insulin/
I looked at these. The second link didn't say a lot, but the first had over 90 pages. I couldn't help but notice NutraSweet had heir hands all over this one. So that one may have just a smidgen of bias.
Want another? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3496/full
Or do we have to call on Aaron again?2 -
stevencloser wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I do have a taste for Diet Coke, but I'm trying to stop drinking it because it's sweetened with Aspartame, and it's supposed to be very bad for your insides when it's metabolised. I think the jury is out about Insulin response and Sweeteners, but a lot of main stream diets do say to avoid sweeteners because they `can' stall your progress. Best to try it and make your own mind up.
The jury has already made their verdict, had coffee, got married, built a house, died and their grandchildren are still screaming at the population at large that it's settled.
http://seriecientifica.org/sites/default/files/scl_enc_butchko.pdf
https://examine.com/nutrition/do-artificial-sweeteners-spike-insulin/
I looked at these. The second link didn't say a lot, but the first had over 90 pages. I couldn't help but notice NutraSweet had heir hands all over this one. So that one may have just a smidgen of bias.
Want another? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3496/full
Or do we have to call on Aaron again?
I don't know who Aaron is but if he is a jerk please don't. No one needs a rude and condescending argument. Also, is his word somehow gospel? I think we should be allowed to discuss and politely disagree with out calling people to push others around for having a different view and not just believing everything we read. I was just saying we would be wise to find unbiased studies.5 -
Aaron is a molecular biologist (I think. Sorry if I didn't get your job description right). He could if he wanted to write you whole essays worth of how compounds like that are broken down in your body. If you don't believe science reviews, maybe someone you can directly talk to would help.
And who was being rude and condescending? Or a jerk for that matter?10 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »GypsyFire65 wrote: »I'm struggling to understand it myself.
Sugar = Bad, Artifical = worse???
I've been using either stevia in the raw, or regular sugar in the raw. I also like raw honey.
Nope. Not true at all.
Totally true depending on whom you ask. I say yes it's worse. The stomach problems and funky neurological side effects do not make artificial sweeteners in any way a good choice for me or my kids. The putrid after taste that doesn't go away for over 2 hours is also a massive annoyance.
Neurological side effects?
And is this something the general population has to worry about, or a select few, who should avoid consuming whatever it is causing their uncommon problem (similar to how someone allergic to peanuts should avoid peanuts)?
Sounds like unnecessary fear mongering to me.
I am not speaking for the population, I am speaking for myself. Hence the words "I say yes it's worse." Not "it's worse for us ALL." I did not attempt to apply this to everyone in any way.
So you and your children have suffered neurological side effects from ingesting artificial sweeteners?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Aaron is a molecular biologist (I think. Sorry if I didn't get your job description right). He could if he wanted to write you whole essays worth of how compounds like that are broken down in your body. If you don't believe science reviews, maybe someone you can directly talk to would help.
And who was being rude and condescending? Or a jerk for that matter?
I did not say anyone was being a jerk I ASKED IF he was a jerk when you said "Do we need to call Aaron in." Also, I said the one study was biased because the NutraSweet people had their hands all over it. You understand that I'm sure. Nothing wrong with differing views. I don't need any "experts" trying to force me into sharing their opinion.
At any rate, I don't need to be muscled into believing the opposing view. I didn't come to argue.1 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »GypsyFire65 wrote: »I'm struggling to understand it myself.
Sugar = Bad, Artifical = worse???
I've been using either stevia in the raw, or regular sugar in the raw. I also like raw honey.
Nope. Not true at all.
Totally true depending on whom you ask. I say yes it's worse. The stomach problems and funky neurological side effects do not make artificial sweeteners in any way a good choice for me or my kids. The putrid after taste that doesn't go away for over 2 hours is also a massive annoyance.
Neurological side effects?
And is this something the general population has to worry about, or a select few, who should avoid consuming whatever it is causing their uncommon problem (similar to how someone allergic to peanuts should avoid peanuts)?
Sounds like unnecessary fear mongering to me.
I am not speaking for the population, I am speaking for myself. Hence the words "I say yes it's worse." Not "it's worse for us ALL." I did not attempt to apply this to everyone in any way.
So you and your children have suffered neurological side effects from ingesting artificial sweeteners?
I did and my child had a serious stomach problem that was caused by sucralose. So FOR US, we say it's worse than sugar. To each his or her own.1 -
I know there are a lot of people who will say aspartame is safe...but for me it was causing severe leg aches. I try to stay away from them as much as possible. I either go without, substitute with something else (honey, agave, etc.), or use the sugar and just adjust my calories for the day.
Luckily, I have never been big on sweets. We owned a grocery store growing up, but instead of raiding the candy isle, I always wanted a slice of longhorn colby....love cheese!
1 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron is a molecular biologist (I think. Sorry if I didn't get your job description right). He could if he wanted to write you whole essays worth of how compounds like that are broken down in your body. If you don't believe science reviews, maybe someone you can directly talk to would help.
And who was being rude and condescending? Or a jerk for that matter?
I did not say anyone was being a jerk I ASKED IF he was a jerk when you said "Do we need to call Aaron in." Also, I said the one study was biased because the NutraSweet people had their hands all over it. You understand that I'm sure. Nothing wrong with differing views. I don't need any "experts" trying to force me into sharing their opinion.
At any rate, I don't need to be muscled into believing the opposing view. I didn't come to argue.
Well here's the thing, scientific fact has nothing to do with opposing views. There's truth and then there's fearmongering. Who paid for the study does not change its contents unless you imply they completely faked it.I know there are a lot of people who will say aspartame is safe...but for me it was causing severe leg aches. I try to stay away from them as much as possible. I either go without, substitute with something else (honey, agave, etc.), or use the sugar and just adjust my calories for the day.
Luckily, I have never been big on sweets. We owned a grocery store growing up, but instead of raiding the candy isle, I always wanted a slice of longhorn colby....love cheese!
I'm always surprised at experiences like that. Because aspartame doesn't even leave your digestive tract as aspartame, it gets immediately broken apart into its parts and those parts you ingest in quantities thousands of times higher every single day. How is it supposed to do anything in your legs? Or for the other poster their neurological system?8 -
stevencloser wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron is a molecular biologist (I think. Sorry if I didn't get your job description right). He could if he wanted to write you whole essays worth of how compounds like that are broken down in your body. If you don't believe science reviews, maybe someone you can directly talk to would help.
And who was being rude and condescending? Or a jerk for that matter?
I did not say anyone was being a jerk I ASKED IF he was a jerk when you said "Do we need to call Aaron in." Also, I said the one study was biased because the NutraSweet people had their hands all over it. You understand that I'm sure. Nothing wrong with differing views. I don't need any "experts" trying to force me into sharing their opinion.
At any rate, I don't need to be muscled into believing the opposing view. I didn't come to argue.
Well here's the thing, scientific fact has nothing to do with opposing views. There's truth and then there's fearmongering. Who paid for the study does not change its contents unless you imply they completely faked it.I know there are a lot of people who will say aspartame is safe...but for me it was causing severe leg aches. I try to stay away from them as much as possible. I either go without, substitute with something else (honey, agave, etc.), or use the sugar and just adjust my calories for the day.
Luckily, I have never been big on sweets. We owned a grocery store growing up, but instead of raiding the candy isle, I always wanted a slice of longhorn colby....love cheese!
I'm always surprised at experiences like that. Because aspartame doesn't even leave your digestive tract as aspartame, it gets immediately broken apart into its parts and those parts you ingest in quantities thousands of times higher every single day. How is it supposed to do anything in your legs? Or for the other poster their neurological system?
This.
I tend not to take too much stock in anecdotes. Confirmation bias is a thing.
Let's say Percy McPerson suffers from IBS-D that is triggered by his severe anxiety. Percy doesn't go to the doctor because his anxiety prevents him from doing so. His IBS gets to be really bad, so he decides to consult Dr. Google. He wades through article after article, dismissing GI diseases like Crohn's disease, or diverticulitis, or ulcerative colitis, because his symptoms don't match up, and he'd have to go to the doctor to get diagnosed with something like that. Then he stumbles across this:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/02/10/new-study-of-splenda-reveals-shocking-information-about-potential-harmful-effects.aspx
This article says that Percy's GI discomfort - the bloating, gas, pain and diarrhea - could be caused by Splenda! And wouldn't you know it, Percy always takes Splenda in his morning tea. That must be the cause! So Percy throws out his Splenda, feeling in control and proud of himself.
Now, since Percy's condition is upset by his anxiety, that feeling of control causes his anxiety to subside a bit temporarily, and maybe the psychological effect from that causes his IBS symptoms to improve. I mean, yeah, he found himself in the bathroom several times right before the presentation he was to give in his work meeting last Thursday, but that was a special case, and he always feels ill when he's nervous.
So Percy decides to shout his success from the mountain tops. Percy goes on internet forums and warns people against the dangers of Splenda. He shares his Mercola article as proof and meets people who question his claims with righteous indignation. Others begin believing him and saying things like, "You know, now that you mention it, I put Splenda in my coffee and I also suffer from occasional GI distress! I'll bet it's the Splenda! Thanks Percy!" The misinformation spreads from person to person. Nevermind that Mercola is a quack and a salesman and science has shown over and over again that there is no real connection between IBS and Splenda(or whatever). Percy knows in his heart that he is right, and no one can convince him otherwise.
Now, if cutting out Splenda caused Percy to feel better and eased his anxiety-induced IBS, that's great. Percy should do what he feels is right. It's when Percy goes around spreading his misinformation and getting defensive when it is called into question that is the issue. Just because Percy says Splenda, without a doubt, caused his problems, doesn't mean that it really was causing his problems. And causing people to believe something is true when it is not is just not ethical, and it could even be harmful, say for example, if a diabetic were to take his advice and switch back to real sugar or honey based on Percy's recommendations.
This is why anecdotal experiences are challenged. I personally want to know the truth. I'm not discounting anyone's experiences, and if cutting something out helped you, personally, that's great. But don't get upset when people question your logic - many people would rather trust the large body of scientific evidence rather than Percy's claim on the internet.18 -
stevencloser wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron is a molecular biologist (I think. Sorry if I didn't get your job description right). He could if he wanted to write you whole essays worth of how compounds like that are broken down in your body. If you don't believe science reviews, maybe someone you can directly talk to would help.
And who was being rude and condescending? Or a jerk for that matter?
I did not say anyone was being a jerk I ASKED IF he was a jerk when you said "Do we need to call Aaron in." Also, I said the one study was biased because the NutraSweet people had their hands all over it. You understand that I'm sure. Nothing wrong with differing views. I don't need any "experts" trying to force me into sharing their opinion.
At any rate, I don't need to be muscled into believing the opposing view. I didn't come to argue.
Well here's the thing, scientific fact has nothing to do with opposing views. There's truth and then there's fearmongering. Who paid for the study does not change its contents unless you imply they completely faked it.I know there are a lot of people who will say aspartame is safe...but for me it was causing severe leg aches. I try to stay away from them as much as possible. I either go without, substitute with something else (honey, agave, etc.), or use the sugar and just adjust my calories for the day.
Luckily, I have never been big on sweets. We owned a grocery store growing up, but instead of raiding the candy isle, I always wanted a slice of longhorn colby....love cheese!
I'm always surprised at experiences like that. Because aspartame doesn't even leave your digestive tract as aspartame, it gets immediately broken apart into its parts and those parts you ingest in quantities thousands of times higher every single day. How is it supposed to do anything in your legs? Or for the other poster their neurological system?
No one is fear mongering. Gave MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE as my reason for my opinion on artificial sweeteners vs sugar. Do not twist my words. Also I was not speaking on just one of the many artificial sweeteners, I was speaking on them all. Be it aspartame, sucralose, Acesulfame-K.1 -
I lived my life on diet soda. And by live my life, I mean that I drank between 3 and 12 cans (yes, seriously) a day from my early teenage years until approximately 2 years ago (I'm 47 now). I have also lived my entire teenage to adult years as overweight, then obese, then morbidly obese. At age 44 or 45 I decided to give it up, thinking perhaps it would help me feel better or help to lose weight - as so many articles have stated that it does horrible things to our body and actually causes people to BE FAT.
Nope. It hasn't made any difference in my ability to lose weight.. and honestly hasn't done anything to my general feeling of well-being.
This doesn't mean I'll start using it again - and definitely never in the quantities I once did - but anything is ok in moderation... especially in this day and age when everything is so processed and filled with chemicals.
Unless one is desiring to eat entirely whole and organic foods (extremely difficult and expensive - and another debate all together), I can't see any reason why not to use sweeteners.
Just wanted to share my personal story for those of you who are interested. 7 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »
I'm only going to talk about your second link since your first is, well, pretty insubstantial.
It talks about what the components of aspartame are and what they do, so far so good.
It seems to keep out the little fact that aspartame is consumed in amounts of fractions of a single gram while your diet contains amounts thousands of times higher of any of them, yes even methanol.
http://www.andeal.org/topic.cfm?cat=4089
Weird how the very important information of dosage is sort of just... left out in your source and the one time I see it mentioned they talk about aspartame in a vaccuum with absolutely nothing else consumed and even there they don't compare it to amounts commonly found in the human diet.
For example, a single glass of milk will have 3 times the amount of phenylanine and 5 times the amount of aspartic acid they say is in a diet soda. Oh and the amount of diet soda they chose is more like a 0.5 l can, so that's 2.5 glasses.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »
I'm only going to talk about your second link since your first is, well, pretty insubstantial.
It talks about what the components of aspartame are and what they do, so far so good.
It seems to keep out the little fact that aspartame is consumed in amounts of fractions of a single gram while your diet contains amounts thousands of times higher of any of them, yes even methanol.
http://www.andeal.org/topic.cfm?cat=4089
Weird how the very important information of dosage is sort of just... left out in your source and the one time I see it mentioned they talk about aspartame in a vaccuum with absolutely nothing else consumed and even there they don't compare it to amounts commonly found in the human diet.
For example, a single glass of milk will have 3 times the amount of phenylanine and 5 times the amount of aspartic acid they say is in a diet soda.
Good then. You see how anyone can post any link as support to what they believe. Glad you see that. At least mine wasn't a biased "study". At any rate, my position stands. The jury is still out as to this side or that side. A biased study is not enough to win me over. Also, I don't even think it matters what the studies say. Artificial sweeteners taste like garbage. Whether they harm the body or not.0 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »
I'm only going to talk about your second link since your first is, well, pretty insubstantial.
It talks about what the components of aspartame are and what they do, so far so good.
It seems to keep out the little fact that aspartame is consumed in amounts of fractions of a single gram while your diet contains amounts thousands of times higher of any of them, yes even methanol.
http://www.andeal.org/topic.cfm?cat=4089
Weird how the very important information of dosage is sort of just... left out in your source and the one time I see it mentioned they talk about aspartame in a vaccuum with absolutely nothing else consumed and even there they don't compare it to amounts commonly found in the human diet.
For example, a single glass of milk will have 3 times the amount of phenylanine and 5 times the amount of aspartic acid they say is in a diet soda.
Good then. You see how anyone can post any link as support to what they believe. Glad you see that. At least mine wasn't a biased "study". At any rate, my position stands. The jury is still out as to this side or that side. A biased study is not enough to win me over. Also, I don't even think it matters what the studies say. Artificial sweeteners taste like garbage. Whether they harm the body or not.
Uhhh... no. That was not "a biased study", it was an overall safety review, looking at the available studies at large. The EFSA one I linked later was another one. The jury has left the building years ago and the janitor is wondering what you're still doing in the courtroom.11 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »
I'm only going to talk about your second link since your first is, well, pretty insubstantial.
It talks about what the components of aspartame are and what they do, so far so good.
It seems to keep out the little fact that aspartame is consumed in amounts of fractions of a single gram while your diet contains amounts thousands of times higher of any of them, yes even methanol.
http://www.andeal.org/topic.cfm?cat=4089
Weird how the very important information of dosage is sort of just... left out in your source and the one time I see it mentioned they talk about aspartame in a vaccuum with absolutely nothing else consumed and even there they don't compare it to amounts commonly found in the human diet.
For example, a single glass of milk will have 3 times the amount of phenylanine and 5 times the amount of aspartic acid they say is in a diet soda.
Good then. You see how anyone can post any link as support to what they believe. Glad you see that. At least mine wasn't a biased "study". At any rate, my position stands. The jury is still out as to this side or that side. A biased study is not enough to win me over. Also, I don't even think it matters what the studies say. Artificial sweeteners taste like garbage. Whether they harm the body or not.
If you can find a fault in the safety review as fast as I can find what makes your links worthless, go ahead and tell us. If you just said you don't like the taste, no one would be arguing.10 -
stevencloser wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »
I'm only going to talk about your second link since your first is, well, pretty insubstantial.
It talks about what the components of aspartame are and what they do, so far so good.
It seems to keep out the little fact that aspartame is consumed in amounts of fractions of a single gram while your diet contains amounts thousands of times higher of any of them, yes even methanol.
http://www.andeal.org/topic.cfm?cat=4089
Weird how the very important information of dosage is sort of just... left out in your source and the one time I see it mentioned they talk about aspartame in a vaccuum with absolutely nothing else consumed and even there they don't compare it to amounts commonly found in the human diet.
For example, a single glass of milk will have 3 times the amount of phenylanine and 5 times the amount of aspartic acid they say is in a diet soda.
Good then. You see how anyone can post any link as support to what they believe. Glad you see that. At least mine wasn't a biased "study". At any rate, my position stands. The jury is still out as to this side or that side. A biased study is not enough to win me over. Also, I don't even think it matters what the studies say. Artificial sweeteners taste like garbage. Whether they harm the body or not.
If you can find a fault in the safety review as fast as I can find what makes your links worthless, go ahead and tell us. If you just said you don't like the taste, no one would be arguing.
Says the one who posted a 90+ page biased study. So again, I say my comments stand. Until you have some unbiased, reliable and concrete evidence from a reliable and trustworthy and unbiased source that has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that artificial sweeteners are in no way, shape or form harmful to those who consume them you just can't convince me otherwise. I know how they have affected me personally and you can't tell me that they did not affect me negatively because you don't live in my body. Although you seem think that somehow you can argue away my personal experience which is all I was ever speaking on to start with. Post any study you like. I know my body and what happens when I consume something that makes me feel poorly.0 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »
I'm only going to talk about your second link since your first is, well, pretty insubstantial.
It talks about what the components of aspartame are and what they do, so far so good.
It seems to keep out the little fact that aspartame is consumed in amounts of fractions of a single gram while your diet contains amounts thousands of times higher of any of them, yes even methanol.
http://www.andeal.org/topic.cfm?cat=4089
Weird how the very important information of dosage is sort of just... left out in your source and the one time I see it mentioned they talk about aspartame in a vaccuum with absolutely nothing else consumed and even there they don't compare it to amounts commonly found in the human diet.
For example, a single glass of milk will have 3 times the amount of phenylanine and 5 times the amount of aspartic acid they say is in a diet soda.
Good then. You see how anyone can post any link as support to what they believe. Glad you see that. At least mine wasn't a biased "study". At any rate, my position stands. The jury is still out as to this side or that side. A biased study is not enough to win me over. Also, I don't even think it matters what the studies say. Artificial sweeteners taste like garbage. Whether they harm the body or not.
If you can find a fault in the safety review as fast as I can find what makes your links worthless, go ahead and tell us. If you just said you don't like the taste, no one would be arguing.
Says the one who posted a 90+ page biased study. So again, I say my comments stand. Until you have some unbiased, reliable and concrete evidence from a reliable and trustworthy and unbiased source that has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that artificial sweeteners are in no way, shape or form harmful to those who consume them you just can't convince me otherwise. I know how they have affected me personally and you can't tell me that they did not affect me negatively because you don't live in my body. Although you seem think that somehow you can argue away my personal experience which is all I was ever speaking on to start with. Post any study you like. I know my body and what happens when I consume something that makes me feel poorly.
Unbiased - you keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.14 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »
I'm only going to talk about your second link since your first is, well, pretty insubstantial.
It talks about what the components of aspartame are and what they do, so far so good.
It seems to keep out the little fact that aspartame is consumed in amounts of fractions of a single gram while your diet contains amounts thousands of times higher of any of them, yes even methanol.
http://www.andeal.org/topic.cfm?cat=4089
Weird how the very important information of dosage is sort of just... left out in your source and the one time I see it mentioned they talk about aspartame in a vaccuum with absolutely nothing else consumed and even there they don't compare it to amounts commonly found in the human diet.
For example, a single glass of milk will have 3 times the amount of phenylanine and 5 times the amount of aspartic acid they say is in a diet soda.
Good then. You see how anyone can post any link as support to what they believe. Glad you see that. At least mine wasn't a biased "study". At any rate, my position stands. The jury is still out as to this side or that side. A biased study is not enough to win me over. Also, I don't even think it matters what the studies say. Artificial sweeteners taste like garbage. Whether they harm the body or not.
If you can find a fault in the safety review as fast as I can find what makes your links worthless, go ahead and tell us. If you just said you don't like the taste, no one would be arguing.
Says the one who posted a 90+ page biased study. So again, I say my comments stand. Until you have some unbiased, reliable and concrete evidence from a reliable and trustworthy and unbiased source that has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that artificial sweeteners are in no way, shape or form harmful to those who consume them you just can't convince me otherwise. I know how they have affected me personally and you can't tell me that they did not affect me negatively because you don't live in my body. Although you seem think that somehow you can argue away my personal experience which is all I was ever speaking on to start with. Post any study you like. I know my body and what happens when I consume something that makes me feel poorly.
Based on the bolded, it seems you are pretty biased yourself. I don't think anyone could post anything, no matter how logical, and change your mind.
Which is fine. But please don't get so defensive when people challenge your opinions. This is the debate section, after all.
7 -
I demonized artificial sweeteners for so long, and I used that as an excuse to eat things with sugar, and I got fat. I'm over that now. I'm using artificial sweeteners and I'm losing weight. Extra weight isn't healthy either - excess fat around your liver, more work for your heart, greater chance of diabetes, etc. Between the two, I think extra weight causes more harm.5
-
I tried stevia and splenda once, and threw them both away straight after
I've never tried diet soda, so cant speak of the taste or aftertaste of those, i drink regular soda on the rare occasion. I used to have 3tsp of sugar in each cup of tea, and i drink a lot of tea everyday, Ironically i was at my thinnest then. I now have my tea with NO sugar, even 1/2 a tsp added is too sweet. I'll stick with real sugar if I'm going to have it. 0 -
I find that in most of these debates that the people who believe artificial sweeteners are bad in some way are so firmly set in their beliefs that there's no point in discussing things further with them. I've seen the science, I'm convinced they're safe. I've been drinking diet soda since the 60's.
I have a place for regular sugar, sucralose, stevia, and xylitol in different places in my diet. I like them all for different things.8 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron is a molecular biologist (I think. Sorry if I didn't get your job description right). He could if he wanted to write you whole essays worth of how compounds like that are broken down in your body. If you don't believe science reviews, maybe someone you can directly talk to would help.
And who was being rude and condescending? Or a jerk for that matter?
I did not say anyone was being a jerk I ASKED IF he was a jerk when you said "Do we need to call Aaron in." Also, I said the one study was biased because the NutraSweet people had their hands all over it. You understand that I'm sure. Nothing wrong with differing views. I don't need any "experts" trying to force me into sharing their opinion.
At any rate, I don't need to be muscled into believing the opposing view. I didn't come to argue.
You posted your unquantifiable anecdotes in a debate thread, but you don't want to argue, learn the basis for opposing views, review relevant science, or read the opinion of experts in the field? I'm not sure that is a good way to participate in a debate. Do you consider the vast body of decades worth of established science all invalid because it was biased? If so, how was it biased?9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I find that in most of these debates that the people who believe artificial sweeteners are bad in some way are so firmly set in their beliefs that there's no point in discussing things further with them. I've seen the science, I'm convinced they're safe. I've been drinking diet soda since the 60's.
I have a place for regular sugar, sucralose, stevia, and xylitol in different places in my diet. I like them all for different things.
There are some others who think they are okay and so set in THEIR beliefs they refuse to believe that people who avoid them have had a bad reaction. This making them BAD for THAT person.3 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron is a molecular biologist (I think. Sorry if I didn't get your job description right). He could if he wanted to write you whole essays worth of how compounds like that are broken down in your body. If you don't believe science reviews, maybe someone you can directly talk to would help.
And who was being rude and condescending? Or a jerk for that matter?
I did not say anyone was being a jerk I ASKED IF he was a jerk when you said "Do we need to call Aaron in." Also, I said the one study was biased because the NutraSweet people had their hands all over it. You understand that I'm sure. Nothing wrong with differing views. I don't need any "experts" trying to force me into sharing their opinion.
At any rate, I don't need to be muscled into believing the opposing view. I didn't come to argue.
You posted your unquantifiable anecdotes in a debate thread, but you don't want to argue, learn the basis for opposing views, review relevant science, or read the opinion of experts in the field? I'm not sure that is a good way to participate in a debate. Do you consider the vast body of decades worth of established science all invalid because it was biased? If so, how was it biased?
I posted PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. NOT "anecdotes".0 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron is a molecular biologist (I think. Sorry if I didn't get your job description right). He could if he wanted to write you whole essays worth of how compounds like that are broken down in your body. If you don't believe science reviews, maybe someone you can directly talk to would help.
And who was being rude and condescending? Or a jerk for that matter?
I did not say anyone was being a jerk I ASKED IF he was a jerk when you said "Do we need to call Aaron in." Also, I said the one study was biased because the NutraSweet people had their hands all over it. You understand that I'm sure. Nothing wrong with differing views. I don't need any "experts" trying to force me into sharing their opinion.
At any rate, I don't need to be muscled into believing the opposing view. I didn't come to argue.
You posted your unquantifiable anecdotes in a debate thread, but you don't want to argue, learn the basis for opposing views, review relevant science, or read the opinion of experts in the field? I'm not sure that is a good way to participate in a debate. Do you consider the vast body of decades worth of established science all invalid because it was biased? If so, how was it biased?
I posted PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. NOT "anecdotes".
Your personal experiences, which include no specific results, numbers, methods, or even a hypothesis, are by definition, unquantifiable anecdotes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
By the way, glad to see you are arguing now 9 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Aaron is a molecular biologist (I think. Sorry if I didn't get your job description right). He could if he wanted to write you whole essays worth of how compounds like that are broken down in your body. If you don't believe science reviews, maybe someone you can directly talk to would help.
And who was being rude and condescending? Or a jerk for that matter?
I did not say anyone was being a jerk I ASKED IF he was a jerk when you said "Do we need to call Aaron in." Also, I said the one study was biased because the NutraSweet people had their hands all over it. You understand that I'm sure. Nothing wrong with differing views. I don't need any "experts" trying to force me into sharing their opinion.
At any rate, I don't need to be muscled into believing the opposing view. I didn't come to argue.
You posted your unquantifiable anecdotes in a debate thread, but you don't want to argue, learn the basis for opposing views, review relevant science, or read the opinion of experts in the field? I'm not sure that is a good way to participate in a debate. Do you consider the vast body of decades worth of established science all invalid because it was biased? If so, how was it biased?
I posted PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. NOT "anecdotes".
That is what anecdote means in this context.
You presented anecdotal evidence to your claim, none of it backed by any science. Just your personal beliefs and feelings.3 -
Diet coke does make a diet coke sweetened with Splenda. I have only found it in the 12 pack can version. As for artificial sweeteners I believe all things in moderation (except for aspartame due to recurring migraines). I like Truvia, liquid Stevia, Splenda, Agave Nectar and Sweet'n low. Sugar on the other hand is like Crack to me and if I ever have any of I tend to crave it again and again so in weight loss mode I completely avoid it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions