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?
Options
Replies
-
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.
online articles tend to also be opinions just so we are clear. Reading a bunch of opinions online doesn't necessarily mean you are getting factual information. Generally in a debate type situation you want to bring evidence to support your opinions, not just give your opinion. Making the claim that sweeteners currently on the market cause cancer or neurological disorders is quite the claim to make and you should probably try to back that claim up with something. People just "stating their opinions" online without bothering to provide evidence of said claims is what generates the articles that you read online that have you believing this in the first place. Its a bad habit to perpetuate.
When you want to come into a public forum in a debate section and warn people off eating common food products because they are in some way carcinogenic or neurotoxic, you might want to at least attempt to back that up with something...otherwise you are just fearmongering.10 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »theycallmenass2013 wrote: »Try xylitol or erythritol. Both are 100% natural, has zero calories, zero GI and are also safe for people with diabetes. Also tooth friendly and helps with weight loss. The only draw back is it is a little pricey but do your shopping on amazon or ebay and you will get a good price.
Xylitol affects my GI tract, erythritol doesn't appear to bother me at all. Other sugar alcohols are even worse, 2-3 pieces of certain sugar-free candies and I'm running to the bathroom.
I'm the exact opposite. I'm fine with xylitol, but erythritol and I don't get along well at all.
So we all agree they can be both good and bad depending on each person's experience with sweeteners?
Please stop telling us what we agree or disagree about. How about you state your own case and let others state theirs.4 -
MountainMomma58 wrote: »My opinion is my opinion, thus not wrong. Many, many non scientific scaremongering articles with no scientific proof 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.
Fixed it for ya.
0 calories apparently causes weight gain, not eating at a calorie surplus..
:laugh:
1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »theycallmenass2013 wrote: »Try xylitol or erythritol. Both are 100% natural, has zero calories, zero GI and are also safe for people with diabetes. Also tooth friendly and helps with weight loss. The only draw back is it is a little pricey but do your shopping on amazon or ebay and you will get a good price.
Xylitol affects my GI tract, erythritol doesn't appear to bother me at all. Other sugar alcohols are even worse, 2-3 pieces of certain sugar-free candies and I'm running to the bathroom.
I'm the exact opposite. I'm fine with xylitol, but erythritol and I don't get along well at all.
So we all agree they can be both good and bad depending on each person's experience with sweeteners?
That is a silly question.
Of course anything can be good or bad for different people in different contexts.
Water is good if you drink it - not if you drown.
Aspartame is good if it helps you cut calories - not if you have PKU.
Peanuts ( kiwi fruit, shellfish etc etc) are good if you like tasty food - not if you have anaphylactic allergy.
Point of the question being?????????
7 -
-
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.
There used to be a UK "newspaper" called the Sunday Sport which published quite a few interesting articles such as:- A statue of Elvis Presley discovered on the planet Mars.
- Finding a Second World War bomber plane on the moon.
- A London double-decker bus buried at the South Pole.
- Aliens Turned Our Son into A Fish Finger.
You can certainly have an opinion but maybe apply a bit of critical thinking to the validity of your source or simply share those sources to expose them to scrutiny and debate? This is the debate section after all.
The internet contains much of human knowledge but also contains much of human stupidity, sales pitches, unfounded opinion and pure woo. The trick is to differentiate which is which.7 -
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.
Of course your opinion can be wrong. If you say "in my opinion the Sky is green" that is wrong.4 -
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.
Yeaah no... Opinions do not change facts.
5 -
stevencloser 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.
Of course your opinion can be wrong. If you say "in my opinion the Sky is green" that is wrong.
Yeah the start "my opinion is my opinion therefore not wrong" was such a weird claim I just ignored it. If you have an opinion on a subjective matter then I can see why would say it can't be wrong. For example "I like the taste of X" is an opinion based on something subjective, taste, so it would be silly to argue that that statement is somehow wrong.
That said if I make a claim about something objective and measurable, like whether or not something increases the chance of cancer, then that claim is either right or wrong. It being my opinion doesn't somehow shelter it from being potentially wrong.5 -
-
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »theycallmenass2013 wrote: »Try xylitol or erythritol. Both are 100% natural, has zero calories, zero GI and are also safe for people with diabetes. Also tooth friendly and helps with weight loss. The only draw back is it is a little pricey but do your shopping on amazon or ebay and you will get a good price.
Xylitol affects my GI tract, erythritol doesn't appear to bother me at all. Other sugar alcohols are even worse, 2-3 pieces of certain sugar-free candies and I'm running to the bathroom.
I'm the exact opposite. I'm fine with xylitol, but erythritol and I don't get along well at all.
So we all agree they can be both good and bad depending on each person's experience with sweeteners?
Please stop telling us what we agree or disagree about. How about you state your own case and let others state theirs.
But I stated nothing so how was I telling anyone anything?0 -
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 finds0 -
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?1 -
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.0 -
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."11 -
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&q="European+Journal+of+Endocrinology"+[JOURNAL]+AND+Löfvenborg+[AUTHOR]+&btnG=&as_sdt=1,48&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.5 -
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&q="European+Journal+of+Endocrinology"+[JOURNAL]+AND+Löfvenborg+[AUTHOR]+&btnG=&as_sdt=1,48&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.
11 -
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. There could be other factors beyond the diet drinks coming into play. The bottom line is drinking a liter a day is associated with a 10 fold risk of diabetes. I think the decrease in fertility is a concern to many older women wanting to have a baby.
"Prof Christine Williams, Professor of Human Nutrition, University of Reading, said the findings were "very interesting" with both types of drinks appearing to have a large effect on diabetes risks.
“Even when the findings were adjusted to account for other factors that could explain the findings, such as greater energy intake, higher BMI or poor diet, the risks remained significantly higher for the higher intake groups," she said,
“A most interesting finding was that the higher risk was the same for both sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages, suggesting that greater risk of diabetes was not directly related to higher calorie intake, or adverse metabolic effects of sugar (in the form of sucrose) from the sweetened drinks."
Last year, a study by Harvard University suggested that two cans of fizzy pop could increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
The study found the drinks raised the risk of heart attacks by one third and the risk of strokes by one sixth.
Other studies have linked sugary drinks to a raised risk of prostate cancer.
A 15-year study found those drinking 300ml of fizzy drinks daily had a 40 per cent higher chance of the disease.
Earlier this week, a study found women who regularly consume soft drinks may be reducing their chances of getting pregnant.
The study of 524 patients found a link between artificial sweeteners, such as those used in “diet” sodas, and lower fertility rates, while use of sugar in soft drinks and added to coffee was associated with poorer quality of eggs and embryos.
One of Britain’s leading fertility experts described the findings as “highly significant”, and warned women not to underestimate the effects of food additives on their likelihood of conception."
1 -
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. There could be other factors beyond the diet drinks coming into play. The bottom line is drinking a liter a day is associated with a 10 fold risk of diabetes. I think the decrease in fertility is a concern to many older women wanting to have a baby.
"Prof Christine Williams, Professor of Human Nutrition, University of Reading, said the findings were "very interesting" with both types of drinks appearing to have a large effect on diabetes risks.
“Even when the findings were adjusted to account for other factors that could explain the findings, such as greater energy intake, higher BMI or poor diet, the risks remained significantly higher for the higher intake groups," she said,
“A most interesting finding was that the higher risk was the same for both sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages, suggesting that greater risk of diabetes was not directly related to higher calorie intake, or adverse metabolic effects of sugar (in the form of sucrose) from the sweetened drinks."
Last year, a study by Harvard University suggested that two cans of fizzy pop could increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
The study found the drinks raised the risk of heart attacks by one third and the risk of strokes by one sixth.
Other studies have linked sugary drinks to a raised risk of prostate cancer.
A 15-year study found those drinking 300ml of fizzy drinks daily had a 40 per cent higher chance of the disease.
Earlier this week, a study found women who regularly consume soft drinks may be reducing their chances of getting pregnant.
The study of 524 patients found a link between artificial sweeteners, such as those used in “diet” sodas, and lower fertility rates, while use of sugar in soft drinks and added to coffee was associated with poorer quality of eggs and embryos.
One of Britain’s leading fertility experts described the findings as “highly significant”, and warned women not to underestimate the effects of food additives on their likelihood of conception."
Epidemiological information is never meant to be used in this way.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions