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?

123457

Replies

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Well, I'm no scientist but....oh wait, yes I am. Hah hah...boom.

    Sorry...couldn't resist :-)

    :heart: <cerebral crush>


    Be skeered :bigsmile:
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    tomteboda wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/two-diet-drinks-a-day-could-double-the-risk-of-diabetes-study-fi/

    Two diet drinks a day could double the risk of diabetes, study finds

    Huh...can anyone actually find this study.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=European+Journal+of+Endocrinology+[JOURNAL]+AND+Löfvenborg+[AUTHOR]

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&amp;q="European+Journal+of+Endocrinology"+[JOURNAL]+AND+Löfvenborg+[AUTHOR]+&amp;btnG=&amp;as_sdt=1,48&amp;as_sdtp=

    I'm not having any luck.

    If you just normal google it all you get is articles like this talking about how a study was performed. Can't find the actual study.

    Ah...got it.

    http://www.eje-online.org/content/175/6/605.full?sid=ba47ad6e-ddee-4bfc-bc32-09f399c4ed22

    I'd recommend that anyone who actually cares about this read the actual study, not articles written by journalists interpreting the study. Might also want to note that the study was a survey. It was a questionaire sent out to people and the result with drinks containing sweetener was no different than their control of other drinks.

    My personal hypothesis about this diet drink - obesity - diabetes link they keep seeing is that people who are overweight are more likely than people who are not overweight to drink diet soda. Those people are also more likely to be obese or to develop obesity-related diseases. None of the statistics I've seen over the last 20 years has convinced me that there is any real functional association; it's a casual correlation owing to voluntary behavior modifications.

    Yup

    And you

    Also <cerebral crush>

  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    tomteboda wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/two-diet-drinks-a-day-could-double-the-risk-of-diabetes-study-fi/

    Two diet drinks a day could double the risk of diabetes, study finds

    Huh...can anyone actually find this study.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=European+Journal+of+Endocrinology+[JOURNAL]+AND+Löfvenborg+[AUTHOR]

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&amp;q="European+Journal+of+Endocrinology"+[JOURNAL]+AND+Löfvenborg+[AUTHOR]+&amp;btnG=&amp;as_sdt=1,48&amp;as_sdtp=

    I'm not having any luck.

    If you just normal google it all you get is articles like this talking about how a study was performed. Can't find the actual study.

    Ah...got it.

    http://www.eje-online.org/content/175/6/605.full?sid=ba47ad6e-ddee-4bfc-bc32-09f399c4ed22

    I'd recommend that anyone who actually cares about this read the actual study, not articles written by journalists interpreting the study. Might also want to note that the study was a survey. It was a questionaire sent out to people and the result with drinks containing sweetener was no different than their control of other drinks.

    My personal hypothesis about this diet drink - obesity - diabetes link they keep seeing is that people who are overweight are more likely than people who are not overweight to drink diet soda. Those people are also more likely to be obese or to develop obesity-related diseases. None of the statistics I've seen over the last 20 years has convinced me that there is any real functional association; it's a casual correlation owing to voluntary behavior modifications.

    Pretty much yeah. You select out of the population a subpopulation of people who drink a lot of diet drinks chances are you are selecting out people who are struggling with their weight (which is why they choose diet drinks in the first place) and of course obesity correlates with diabeties.
  • vingogly
    vingogly Posts: 1,785 Member
    edited October 2016
    The_Enginerd wrote: »
    Oxymoron: My opinion is that our bodies are not made to digest chemicals.

    If you present something as a fact, you better be prepared to back up that statement. With good quality sources and data. Especially in a debate forum.

    And everything we eat is made up of chemicals.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    A "study" based upon self-reported surveys isn't even a "study" - it's simply a poll. There's no research or science involved in it, it's simply asking questions (which can be cleverly slanted toward the desired result) and tabulating the results. Self-reporting is the least valid method of data acquisition (surpassed only by outright guessing) and basically invalidates any findings as nothing more than speculative correlation. Classic example of "garbage in, garbage out".
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    Consider the source.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    Consider the source.

    Already duly noted. Lol.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,002 Member
    edited October 2016
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    MountainMomma58 wrote: »
    My opinion is my opinion, thus not wrong. Many, many articles about what chemicals do to your body, possible effects on the immune system, cancer links, weight gain, fatigue, etc. If you don't believe it, fine.
    Your opinion is your opinion. It doesn't mean it ISN'T wrong. The issue here is when people get refuted by actual evidence from clinical studies or from other people with more knowledge on the subject, their ego gets in the way of accepting that they could be incorrect. No one wants to be wrong, but if information is wrong, you should step back and accept it. I've had to do it a few times on the boards.

    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


    There is a tendency to confuse what an opinion is. Chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, my opinion. No one can scientifically prove which is better, better is relative. The earth is flat, not an opinion, a scientifically proven fact. Anyone who believes otherwise is just wrong, regardless of what they think...
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    MountainMomma58 wrote: »
    My opinion is my opinion, thus not wrong. Many, many articles about what chemicals do to your body, possible effects on the immune system, cancer links, weight gain, fatigue, etc. If you don't believe it, fine.
    Your opinion is your opinion. It doesn't mean it ISN'T wrong. The issue here is when people get refuted by actual evidence from clinical studies or from other people with more knowledge on the subject, their ego gets in the way of accepting that they could be incorrect. No one wants to be wrong, but if information is wrong, you should step back and accept it. I've had to do it a few times on the boards.

    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

    The earth is flat, not an opinion, a scientifically proven fact. Anyone who believes otherwise is just wrong, regardless of what they think...

    Found the flat-earther! :D
  • 100df
    100df Posts: 668 Member
    I have been assured by cancer doctors numerous times that diet coke (artificial sweetners) does not cause cancer.

    In terms of good or bad, limiting how much diet coke I consume makes it easier to stay within my calorie goal. I am not sure why but believe it is related to the artificial sweetners and caffeine. I have no idea if there is science behind this but limiting diet coke isn't harmful so it's what I do as help for the calorie goal and sleeping.

    I have tried baking with artificial sweetners without what I consider successful results. I'd rather have the sugar and count the calories.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/two-diet-drinks-a-day-could-double-the-risk-of-diabetes-study-fi/

    Two diet drinks a day could double the risk of diabetes, study finds

    Oh yeah, this must be why they are recommended to diabetics by the American Diabetes Association: http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/what-can-i-drink.html

    And since when does correlation imply causation?

    Who said anything about causation of anything in the article.

    Literally the title of the article. "Two Diet Drinks a Day Could Double the Risk of Diabetes, Study Finds "

    "Double" is used as a verb, with the subject being "Diet Drinks", which grammatically means that the subject is performing the verb.

    It's a fear-mongering click-bait article based on a retrospective study that found a correlation. It means nothing other than the Telegraph is making money from all the clicks it is getting.

    And one of the "experts" had this incredibly scientific statement to make:
    Tam Fry, from the National Obesity Forum, said: “This is yet another warning that sweetened drinks, though appearing harmless on the surface, can mess things up inside you. Why should you want to take that risk when a glass or two of water will slake your thirst and not put your health in jeopardy? "

    Yes, when I want to make sure I sound smart and credible I use the phrase "can mess things up inside you."

    But it does not claim Diet Drinks "does" cause diabetes.

    But it does claim that they cause an increased risk of diabetes when, in fact, they only correlate with an increased risk.

    This is intellectual dishonesty because, as we all know, correlation does not equal causation.

    I don't think the actual study claims that, just the internet article.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,279 Member
    100df wrote: »
    I have been assured by cancer doctors numerous times that diet coke (artificial sweetners) does not cause cancer.

    In terms of good or bad, limiting how much diet coke I consume makes it easier to stay within my calorie goal. I am not sure why but believe it is related to the artificial sweetners and caffeine. I have no idea if there is science behind this but limiting diet coke isn't harmful so it's what I do as help for the calorie goal and sleeping.

    I have tried baking with artificial sweetners without what I consider successful results. I'd rather have the sugar and count the calories.

    I think that is a perfectly reasonable individual response.

    Ie you individually have found, for whatever unknown reason, that consuming diet coke makes keeping within your calorie goal harder and keeps you awake ( the latter probably being the caffeine)

    And as you say limiting diet coke certainly is not harmful so if somebody doesn't want to drink it - don't. Simple.

    Nobody would object to that.



  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/two-diet-drinks-a-day-could-double-the-risk-of-diabetes-study-fi/

    Two diet drinks a day could double the risk of diabetes, study finds

    Oh yeah, this must be why they are recommended to diabetics by the American Diabetes Association: http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/what-can-i-drink.html

    And since when does correlation imply causation?

    Who said anything about causation of anything in the article.

    Literally the title of the article. "Two Diet Drinks a Day Could Double the Risk of Diabetes, Study Finds "

    "Double" is used as a verb, with the subject being "Diet Drinks", which grammatically means that the subject is performing the verb.

    It's a fear-mongering click-bait article based on a retrospective study that found a correlation. It means nothing other than the Telegraph is making money from all the clicks it is getting.

    And one of the "experts" had this incredibly scientific statement to make:
    Tam Fry, from the National Obesity Forum, said: “This is yet another warning that sweetened drinks, though appearing harmless on the surface, can mess things up inside you. Why should you want to take that risk when a glass or two of water will slake your thirst and not put your health in jeopardy? "

    Yes, when I want to make sure I sound smart and credible I use the phrase "can mess things up inside you."

    But it does not claim Diet Drinks "does" cause diabetes.

    But it does claim that they cause an increased risk of diabetes when, in fact, they only correlate with an increased risk.

    This is intellectual dishonesty because, as we all know, correlation does not equal causation.

    I don't think the actual study claims that, just the internet article.

    Right. Just illustrating that the article is making false claims not substantiated by the study.
  • KrazyKrissyy
    KrazyKrissyy Posts: 322 Member
    I don't think so. I use Walden Farms almost every day by the way. No bad after taste either (in my opinion), and hasn't hindered any results.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    100df wrote: »
    I have been assured by cancer doctors numerous times that diet coke (artificial sweetners) does not cause cancer.

    In terms of good or bad, limiting how much diet coke I consume makes it easier to stay within my calorie goal. I am not sure why but believe it is related to the artificial sweetners and caffeine. I have no idea if there is science behind this but limiting diet coke isn't harmful so it's what I do as help for the calorie goal and sleeping.

    I have tried baking with artificial sweetners without what I consider successful results. I'd rather have the sugar and count the calories.

    I agree that is perfectly reasonable. I think that diet drinks are completely harmless however I'm not going to try to argue with someone's individual tastes that they for some reason must drink diet soda. If you find diet soda isn't compatible with your diet or goals then by all means avoid it.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited October 2016
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/two-diet-drinks-a-day-could-double-the-risk-of-diabetes-study-fi/

    Two diet drinks a day could double the risk of diabetes, study finds

    Oh yeah, this must be why they are recommended to diabetics by the American Diabetes Association: http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/what-can-i-drink.html

    And since when does correlation imply causation?

    Who said anything about causation of anything in the article.

    Literally the title of the article. "Two Diet Drinks a Day Could Double the Risk of Diabetes, Study Finds "

    "Double" is used as a verb, with the subject being "Diet Drinks", which grammatically means that the subject is performing the verb.

    It's a fear-mongering click-bait article based on a retrospective study that found a correlation. It means nothing other than the Telegraph is making money from all the clicks it is getting.

    And one of the "experts" had this incredibly scientific statement to make:
    Tam Fry, from the National Obesity Forum, said: “This is yet another warning that sweetened drinks, though appearing harmless on the surface, can mess things up inside you. Why should you want to take that risk when a glass or two of water will slake your thirst and not put your health in jeopardy? "

    Yes, when I want to make sure I sound smart and credible I use the phrase "can mess things up inside you."

    But it does not claim Diet Drinks "does" cause diabetes.

    But it does claim that they cause an increased risk of diabetes when, in fact, they only correlate with an increased risk.

    This is intellectual dishonesty because, as we all know, correlation does not equal causation.

    I don't think the actual study claims that, just the internet article.

    Right. Just illustrating that the article is making false claims not substantiated by the study.

    Fair enough but I feel the need to make that correction. The reason is there are lots of people who say "well some studies say this but other studies say the opposite so who knows" when in fact generally speaking its one internet article says this about a study and one internet article says that about a study while the actual studies themselves don't make causative claims at all. Refering to a study saying something that actually some unscientifically trained blogger said while citing a study just reinforces that "you can find a study that claims anything" feel that people refer to when they dismiss science as just another opinion.

    Its because their exposure to science has been opinion, opinion not from the actual studies but they didn't read the study...they read an opinion piece from an internet blogger who claimed its what a study said.

    Main reason why its so critical to seek out primary sources and not just take someones opinion of them as the same thing as the source itself.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/two-diet-drinks-a-day-could-double-the-risk-of-diabetes-study-fi/

    Two diet drinks a day could double the risk of diabetes, study finds

    Oh yeah, this must be why they are recommended to diabetics by the American Diabetes Association: http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/what-can-i-drink.html

    And since when does correlation imply causation?

    Who said anything about causation of anything in the article.

    Literally the title of the article. "Two Diet Drinks a Day Could Double the Risk of Diabetes, Study Finds "

    "Double" is used as a verb, with the subject being "Diet Drinks", which grammatically means that the subject is performing the verb.

    It's a fear-mongering click-bait article based on a retrospective study that found a correlation. It means nothing other than the Telegraph is making money from all the clicks it is getting.

    And one of the "experts" had this incredibly scientific statement to make:
    Tam Fry, from the National Obesity Forum, said: “This is yet another warning that sweetened drinks, though appearing harmless on the surface, can mess things up inside you. Why should you want to take that risk when a glass or two of water will slake your thirst and not put your health in jeopardy? "

    Yes, when I want to make sure I sound smart and credible I use the phrase "can mess things up inside you."

    But it does not claim Diet Drinks "does" cause diabetes.

    But it does claim that they cause an increased risk of diabetes when, in fact, they only correlate with an increased risk.

    This is intellectual dishonesty because, as we all know, correlation does not equal causation.

    I don't think the actual study claims that, just the internet article.

    Right. Just illustrating that the article is making false claims not substantiated by the study.

    Fair enough but I feel the need to make that correction. The reason is there are lots of people who say "well some studies say this but other studies say the opposite so who knows" when in fact generally speaking its one internet article says this about a study and one internet article says that about a study while the actual studies themselves don't make causative claims at all. Refering to a study saying something that actually some unscientifically trained blogger said while citing a study just reinforces that "you can find a study that claims anything" feel that people refer to when they dismiss science as just another opinion.

    Its because their exposure to science has been opinion, opinion not from the actual studies but they didn't read the study...they read an opinion piece from an internet blogger who claimed its what a study said.

    Main reason why its so critical to seek out primary sources and not just take someones opinion of them as the same thing as the source itself.

    Exactly. You and I completely agree on that point.
  • jondspen
    jondspen Posts: 253 Member
    edited October 2016
    stevencloser wrote: »
    jondspen wrote: »
    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?

    Honestly, I can't answer your question. I did not major in biology, or get my PhD in biochemistry, so I am ignorant on many of the processes involved in converting chemicals to energy inside a living organism. I DO KNOW that there are these people called DOCTORS who study this stuff, do scientific research, and publish their findings in peer reviewed publications, where others can conduct the same experiments and replicate the findings.

    I also know that hydrogen peroxide is H2O2, which is just hydrogen and oxygen. Hell, it's almost water!!! So by your argument, a person can also injest hydrogen peroxide, and since it is broken down in the liver by Catalase into water and an oxygen molecule...neither of which are poisonous...then hydrogen peroxide is not poisonous. Yet we know that Hydrogen Peroxide is POISONOUS to humans, and you CAN DIE from it.

    Just because the body can eventually break it down into something that is ok...doesn't mean that it is not dangerous or harmful to the body. Perhaps it's the initial chemical, perhaps it's what is released into the body during the break down process, perhaps it's one of the chemicals left after the breakdown; I don't know. All I do know is my experience with the stuff and SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH that has found aspartame is not benign.
    http://www.medicinenet.com/artificial_sweeteners/page8.htm

    Logic = 1
    Stevencloser = 0
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    edited October 2016
    jondspen wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    jondspen wrote: »
    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?

    Honestly, I can't answer your question. I did not major in biology, or get my PhD in biochemistry, so I am ignorant on many of the processes involved in converting chemicals to energy inside a living organism. I DO KNOW that there are these people called DOCTORS who study this stuff, do scientific research, and publish their findings in peer reviewed publications, where others can conduct the same experiments and replicate the findings.

    I also know that hydrogen peroxide is H2O2, which is just hydrogen and oxygen. Hell, it's almost water!!! So by your argument, a person can also injest hydrogen peroxide, and since it is broken down in the liver by Catalase into water and an oxygen molecule...neither of which are poisonous...then hydrogen peroxide is not poisonous. Yet we know that Hydrogen Peroxide is POISONOUS to humans, and you CAN DIE from it.

    Just because the body can eventually break it down into something that is ok...doesn't mean that it is not dangerous or harmful to the body. Perhaps it's the initial chemical, perhaps it's what is released into the body during the break down process, perhaps it's one of the chemicals left after the breakdown; I don't know. All I do know is my experience with the stuff and SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH that has found aspartame is not benign.
    http://www.medicinenet.com/artificial_sweeteners/page8.htm

    Logic = 1
    Stevencloser = 0

    @jondspen
    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1
This discussion has been closed.

Categories