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?

135678

Replies

  • ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken Posts: 1,530 Member
    richln wrote: »
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »
    richln 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 :)

    I don't need all that to know how it affects me. You may need to do all that to determine how you feel, but I'm pretty good at detecting when I feel sick.
  • ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken Posts: 1,530 Member
    I'll say also, I meant to address but I did forget. I did not realize that was the debate forum until some one mentioned it. I rarely look at the forum title, I usually just look at the posts column. Yeah, I know. That makes me a rotten and despicable person. To err is human.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,978 Member
    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.
    No such thing. It's been cultivated from a source. Sugar doesn't grow from trees or underground.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,978 Member
    alexpn 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.
    Where you get your information on aspartame matters. And many just get opinionated ones and not actual scientific info.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »
    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.

    The only scientifically sound "bad" reaction to artificial sweeteners that I'm aware of is migraine for some migraneurs.

    Other than that, I'm sorry, I have to go with the other posters that you're finding confirmation bias.
  • Sweets1954
    Sweets1954 Posts: 507 Member
    I have tried all the artificial sweeteners and do not like the aftertaste of any of them. I prefer to include the calories in my daily allotment and use natural sweeteners, mostly honey or maple syrup.
  • Caitlinbc
    Caitlinbc Posts: 1,914 Member
    The only ones I like are Splenda and Stevia. I don't get the side effects or bad after taste with them. I also like that you can cook with it like actual sugar.
  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,573 Member
    I love me some stevia and whatever they use to make those flavor drops from My Protein
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    GypsyFire65 wrote: »
    I'm struggling to understand it myself.
    Sugar = Bad, Artificial = worse???

    I've been using either stevia in the raw, or regular sugar in the raw. I also like raw honey.

    For me, Artificial = Worse because it tastes nasty to me.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    edited September 2016
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Sweeteners area really neither good nor bad. They generally don't have any nutritional benefits so they aren't really helping with your health but they can assist in satisfying cravings that might otherwise result in caloric excess. They aren't toxins, that is total b.s. but they also aren't going to single-handedly make you a healthier person, you have to learn how to fuel your body appropriately, not just avoid sugar.

    I'm personally indifferent towards them although I do get annoyed by the "anti-chemical" fearmongering surrounding them.

    @Aaron_K123 did you catch the shout-outs to you last page? He didn't use your full username, just Aaron.
  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,208 Member
    edited September 2016
    I drink/eat sweeteners like Splenda and aspartame and don't see it as good or bad just... neutral. It's simply another tool in my arsenal that is used to meet my weight loss goals.
  • Hamsibian
    Hamsibian Posts: 1,388 Member
    I am trying to limit my sugar intake because they all affect me, even fruits and more natural sweeteners. The only stuff I have daily is some raw honey and a serving or two of fruit (although the last couple of days have been a lot more due to apple season starting lol). I have maple syrup or molasses once in a blue moon, and that's about it. I don't miss sweets at all; in fact the last time I tried a vanilla latte - one of my favorite drinks - I had to throw it away after two sips.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Sweeteners area really neither good nor bad. They generally don't have any nutritional benefits so they aren't really helping with your health but they can assist in satisfying cravings that might otherwise result in caloric excess. They aren't toxins, that is total b.s. but they also aren't going to single-handedly make you a healthier person, you have to learn how to fuel your body appropriately, not just avoid sugar.

    I'm personally indifferent towards them although I do get annoyed by the "anti-chemical" fearmongering surrounding them.

    @Aaron_K123 did you catch the shout-outs to you last page? He didn't use your full username, just Aaron.

    Yeah I did, but got the distinct sense that I would be ignored so I didn't see much point in responding. I can only get into that so many times before I start feeling like I'm wasting my time to be honest.

    Sometimes I know I am wasting my time with a particular poster but respond for the benefit of others in the thread or lurkers.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Sweeteners area really neither good nor bad. They generally don't have any nutritional benefits so they aren't really helping with your health but they can assist in satisfying cravings that might otherwise result in caloric excess. They aren't toxins, that is total b.s. but they also aren't going to single-handedly make you a healthier person, you have to learn how to fuel your body appropriately, not just avoid sugar.

    I'm personally indifferent towards them although I do get annoyed by the "anti-chemical" fearmongering surrounding them.

    @Aaron_K123 did you catch the shout-outs to you last page? He didn't use your full username, just Aaron.

    Yeah I did, but got the distinct sense that I would be ignored so I didn't see much point in responding. I can only get into that so many times before I start feeling like I'm wasting my time to be honest.

    Sometimes I know I am wasting my time with a particular poster but respond for the benefit of others in the thread or lurkers.

    I think that's a fair mindset, but it's absolutely up to each person to decide where to put their energy. There have been lots of threads I've skipped because I didn't want to spend time wading through them hoping to get through to someone. More power to you if that's what you choose, but I don't think you get to imply that's what the rest of us should be doing.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Sweeteners area really neither good nor bad. They generally don't have any nutritional benefits so they aren't really helping with your health but they can assist in satisfying cravings that might otherwise result in caloric excess. They aren't toxins, that is total b.s. but they also aren't going to single-handedly make you a healthier person, you have to learn how to fuel your body appropriately, not just avoid sugar.

    I'm personally indifferent towards them although I do get annoyed by the "anti-chemical" fearmongering surrounding them.

    @Aaron_K123 did you catch the shout-outs to you last page? He didn't use your full username, just Aaron.

    Yeah I did, but got the distinct sense that I would be ignored so I didn't see much point in responding. I can only get into that so many times before I start feeling like I'm wasting my time to be honest.

    Sometimes I know I am wasting my time with a particular poster but respond for the benefit of others in the thread or lurkers.

    I agree with this in principle, but in practice it gets tiring. I've learned from experience that if I just respond to absolutely everyone on this topic I burn myself out and end up stopping posting altogether. Better to pace myself I feel and not jump in when someone literally says they don't want to pay attention to that.

    We got your back :p
  • ouryve
    ouryve Posts: 572 Member
    MeganMoroz89 wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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.
    No such thing. It's been cultivated from a source. Sugar doesn't grow from trees or underground.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png


    But there is a such thing called Sugar in the Raw, which is what I think they were talking about. We have some at our office right now, although in cubed form.

    i5r2g1hp6sit.jpg


    http://www.thekitchn.com/whats-the-difference-muscovado-145157
    It's all sugar, even delicious, toffeeish muscavado. That turbanido looks indistinguishable from demerara, anyhow, and, apart from the depth of flavour which distinguishes it from the white stuff, it's still sticky and calorific and still adds just as many calories to the blueberry & banana muffins I make for the boys.
  • ouryve
    ouryve Posts: 572 Member
    And yeah, for the record, I think it's better to re-educate your palate than seek out sugar substitutes. Some taste better than others, but I prefer to avoid them all, unless I want some coke for my vodka.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,978 Member
    MeganMoroz89 wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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.
    No such thing. It's been cultivated from a source. Sugar doesn't grow from trees or underground.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png


    But there is a such thing called Sugar in the Raw, which is what I think they were talking about. We have some at our office right now, although in cubed form.

    i5r2g1hp6sit.jpg

    So in other words it's gone through no "processing"? The sugar comes from somewhere, usually a fruit or cane. It's then extracted. Just because it's called "sugar in the raw", doesn't mean it's "raw" sugar.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • Ruatine
    Ruatine Posts: 3,424 Member
    I don't know that there's much else that can be added to this conversation. I agree with many others that artificial sweeteners in and of themselves are neither good nor bad. If a particular person finds that a certain sweetener gives them migraines, it is "bad" only for that person, in the same way that peanuts are "bad" for a person with a peanut allergy but not for the population at large.

    As a personal anecdote, I've been regularly ingesting aspartame for over 20 years - I started drinking Diet Coke as a kid. I've also been using Splenda (my sweetener of choice) in my coffee, cooking and baking for about 10 years. I find sweeteners a wonderful option for lowering calories without sacrificing the sweetness I love. All of this without any medical problems. Even as a migraine sufferer, I have not found aspartame consumption to be a precipitating event.

    Do what works for you.
  • jaya_the_playa
    jaya_the_playa Posts: 1 Member
    I have to wonder if the people who avoid sweeteners also avoid foods that are smoked, charred, or cured. After all, sweeteners, perhaps the most studied food related chemicals in the world, have been showed by dozens of studies to be safe. Smoked, charred, and cured foods are *known* to contain carcinogens by virtue of being smoked. Thoughts?
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    jaya_the_playa wrote: »
    I have to wonder if the people who avoid sweeteners also avoid foods that are smoked, charred, or cured. After all, sweeteners, perhaps the most studied food related chemicals in the world, have been showed by dozens of studies to be safe. Smoked, charred, and cured foods are *known* to contain carcinogens by virtue of being smoked. Thoughts?

    I avoid smoked foods but drink diet soda daily.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,279 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »
    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.

    The only scientifically sound "bad" reaction to artificial sweeteners that I'm aware of is migraine for some migraneurs.

    Other than that, I'm sorry, I have to go with the other posters that you're finding confirmation bias.

    I think the diahhroea (sp?) effect from some artificial sweeteners is scientifically backed too.

    I have found this effect from sugar free lollies at any rate.

    But I drink Pepsi Max and Diet coke with no ill effects - different sweetener I think?

    Other than the 'ready made' artificial sweetener in diet sodas I dont use artificial sweeteners - not because I have anything against them but because I dont sweeten food much anyway - I have coffee unsweetened and a small teaspoon of sugar on my breakfast cereal.
    A 1kg packet of sugar lasts me nearly a year.

    (Yes I realise there is plenty of sugar in foods I eat - but I dont add sugar or sweetener.)

  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    paperpudding wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »
    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.

    The only scientifically sound "bad" reaction to artificial sweeteners that I'm aware of is migraine for some migraneurs.

    Other than that, I'm sorry, I have to go with the other posters that you're finding confirmation bias.

    I think the diahhroea (sp?) effect from some artificial sweeteners is scientifically backed too.

    I have found this effect from sugar free lollies at any rate.

    But I drink Pepsi Max and Diet coke with no ill effects - different sweetener I think?

    Other than the 'ready made' artificial sweetener in diet sodas I dont use artificial sweeteners - not because I have anything against them but because I dont sweeten food much anyway - I have coffee unsweetened and a small teaspoon of sugar on my breakfast cereal.
    A 1kg packet of sugar lasts me nearly a year.

    (Yes I realise there is plenty of sugar in foods I eat - but I dont add sugar or sweetener.)

    The diarrhea is from sugar alcohols not aspartame and sucrolose, etc.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories