Diet Cokes ?
Replies
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »You know a chemist who believes that water has a memory and the more you dilute a substance the more potent its effect? Can...can you get this person on here to talk that is fascinating. If you can't then you probably shouldn't claim legitimacy based on interactions with a person we will never have the chance to interact with ourselves.
In some countries, at least, they use the terms "homeopath" and "naturopath" interchangeably. I know this because my cousin calls herself a homeopath when what she actually practices is naturopathy.
As for the "would you feed a baby Diet Coke" nonsense - no, I wouldn't feed either of my kids Diet Coke because they are still growing and they need to gain weight. So, I would not feed them any diet product. That doesn't mean that I, as an adult who needs to lose weight, shouldn't drink the diet product.
+1
Lately it seems that all of my social circle are using homeopath, naturopath, holistic interchangeably. I don't think they realize there're differences.
Add in organic and you have the holy quartet.
I am an organic chemist. Does that count? 6 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »You know a chemist who believes that water has a memory and the more you dilute a substance the more potent its effect? Can...can you get this person on here to talk that is fascinating. If you can't then you probably shouldn't claim legitimacy based on interactions with a person we will never have the chance to interact with ourselves.
In some countries, at least, they use the terms "homeopath" and "naturopath" interchangeably. I know this because my cousin calls herself a homeopath when what she actually practices is naturopathy.
As for the "would you feed a baby Diet Coke" nonsense - no, I wouldn't feed either of my kids Diet Coke because they are still growing and they need to gain weight. So, I would not feed them any diet product. That doesn't mean that I, as an adult who needs to lose weight, shouldn't drink the diet product.
+1
Lately it seems that all of my social circle are using homeopath, naturopath, holistic interchangeably. I don't think they realize there're differences.
Add in organic and you have the holy quartet.
I am an organic chemist. Does that count?
Isn't that an oxymoron?
7 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »You know a chemist who believes that water has a memory and the more you dilute a substance the more potent its effect? Can...can you get this person on here to talk that is fascinating. If you can't then you probably shouldn't claim legitimacy based on interactions with a person we will never have the chance to interact with ourselves.
In some countries, at least, they use the terms "homeopath" and "naturopath" interchangeably. I know this because my cousin calls herself a homeopath when what she actually practices is naturopathy.
As for the "would you feed a baby Diet Coke" nonsense - no, I wouldn't feed either of my kids Diet Coke because they are still growing and they need to gain weight. So, I would not feed them any diet product. That doesn't mean that I, as an adult who needs to lose weight, shouldn't drink the diet product.
+1
Lately it seems that all of my social circle are using homeopath, naturopath, holistic interchangeably. I don't think they realize there're differences.
Add in organic and you have the holy quartet.
I am an organic chemist. Does that count?
You work for Big Benzene, don't you? Just fess up!!!!6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »You know a chemist who believes that water has a memory and the more you dilute a substance the more potent its effect? Can...can you get this person on here to talk that is fascinating. If you can't then you probably shouldn't claim legitimacy based on interactions with a person we will never have the chance to interact with ourselves.
In some countries, at least, they use the terms "homeopath" and "naturopath" interchangeably. I know this because my cousin calls herself a homeopath when what she actually practices is naturopathy.
As for the "would you feed a baby Diet Coke" nonsense - no, I wouldn't feed either of my kids Diet Coke because they are still growing and they need to gain weight. So, I would not feed them any diet product. That doesn't mean that I, as an adult who needs to lose weight, shouldn't drink the diet product.
+1
Lately it seems that all of my social circle are using homeopath, naturopath, holistic interchangeably. I don't think they realize there're differences.
Add in organic and you have the holy quartet.
I am an organic chemist. Does that count?
You work for Big Benzene, don't you? Just fess up!!!!
Or Big Carrot.8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »ronjsteele1 wrote: »ronjsteele1 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »For example, if someone says the FDA reports 98 known side effects of aspartame, it should be trivially easy to point to the FDA listing them and identifying them in an official source, no?
Since I know exactly where this claim comes from and it proves how ron didn't actually even research his own sources and is just repeating something he heard somewhere, let me enlighten you.
Here: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/jan03/012203/02p-0317_emc-000199.txt
This is what the FDA calls a docket. What is a docket you may ask?
"The system allows consumers to access FDA's administrative proceedings and rule-making documents more readily, including Federal Registers, Petitions, supporting documents and comments."
and "By law, anyone can participate in the rule-making process by commenting in writing on rules FDA proposes. FDA routinely allows plenty of time for public input and carefully considers these comments when it draws up a final rule."
The link above is a docket comment sent TO the FDA by a certain Mark Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Information Center, which appears to consist of Mark Gold, Mark Gold, Mark Gold and Mark Gold. A google search of the Center shows you exactly what kind of people use that as their source.
And right now, I can either choose to get my workout in or sit here and argue with people and lose my workout time. I'd rather workout. It burns more calories.
Oddly, most of my posts on here some from rest periods while I'm working out. Not a shocker though at your thought process. On MFP all the time must equal "puts MFP ahead of working out". Just another correlation does not equal causation. Who usually likes to use correlation as a defense? Quacks.
I did not say being on mfp meant one is putting it ahead of working out so don't put words in mouth. I specifically said *I* had a choice to make.
As for the fda link and not trusting the fda, I was simply trying to grab a link off of a page that most of you worship as truth. Had I posted a link from an alternative site (which, quite frankly, I inadvertently did anyway) someone would have said it wasn't a valid site. So no matter what I had posted with that information you would have blown it off anyway. There is no point with you people.
And Aaron, for the record, that was not an underhanded compliment. It was absolutely sincere. I have not read everything you've ever posted on mfp. Sorry you can't take it for what it was.
FWIW my homeopath was a chemist for 10yrs before she went back to school to become a homeopath. She's amazingly intelligent and her chemistry background has proven useful in her practice.
Have a nice day folks. Time for me to get to work.
You know a chemist who believes that water has a memory and the more you dilute a substance the more potent its effect? Can...can you get this person on here to talk that is fascinating. If you can't then you probably shouldn't claim legitimacy based on interactions with a person we will never have the chance to interact with ourselves.
As for compliments when I choose to compliment someone I tend to just say something like "You look beautiful" not "You are looking beautiful today, unlike many the other days I have seen you". I may be "absolutely sincere" that the person looks beutiful on that day, that isn't what makes it an underhanded compliment. If you honestly cannot see how the second phrasing detracts a bit from the "compliment" I don't know what to say.
You forgot that you have to shake the water...really hard @.@ I can't even roll my eyes hard enough.6 -
That's like saying a pilot can use thier back round to help with their flying carpet company or a dentist can use their experience to open a tooth fairy business or an astrophysicist can use what they've learned to become an astrologer.ronjsteele1 wrote: »FWIW my homeopath was a chemist for 10yrs before she went back to school to become a homeopath. She's amazingly intelligent and her chemistry background has proven useful in her practice.
Homeopathy is the ultimate pseudoscience. It has failed miserably when tested.
13 -
Dreamyriver wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Frank Gallagher would be SO proud....nutmegoreo wrote: »
That seems like internet begging. At least this way I'm doing a goods for services and can feel productive. :laugh:
That's not Frank, this is Frank:
Flipping Americans, coming over here, stealing our amazingly awesome dramas... (well, when I say 'here', I don't mean 'here', because I'm now in Australia, but 'here', the UK)
Ugh. No, just no.
I'm an Aussie. I've watched both versions and I fall asleep during the UK version. You've obviously never even given the US version a chance. At least I've given the original a chance. Of course the US couldn't relate to the UK version hence the US version. They are quite different. And for the record, your rant about "Americans stealing UK shows"? Don't get me started on the opposite.2 -
Chilli7777 wrote: »Any type of soda, sugar free or otherwise, expands the tummy and will make you feel hungry. Diet coke is so full of chemicals. It wont hinder your weight loss if you dont eat extra food, but it is bad for youe overall health in so many othet ways. Personally I dont touch it.
And here I was pretty sure that the stomach stretching is one of the physical signals of fullness and why so many are successful at killing hunger with large volumes of food.
Yes. It gives me such a headache when someone says "drink water to make your stomach feel full and you won't feel hungry" and then "don't drink soda because it makes your stomach feel full and you'll get hungrier." Please stop it.
IME water does nothing to stave off hunger, but the sweet flavor of soda helps tide me over in between meals.2 -
Do diet cokes hinder weight loss in any way other than make you hungrier ? They don't make me more hungry, even though there has been studies that say they do. I just want to know what do regular people who have lost weight think about them.Thanks !
Is diet coke bad for you?
In all honesty, I dont know. I drink my diet coke daily, but im trying to reduce it. (in the past i would drink 1-2 liters daily, now im down to 0,5L)
I see most people here say its totally harmless. I think thats a bold statement, because history shows us that "science" cant always be trusted.
Smoking was not bad for you either for many many many years - untill it was.
Sugar - any amount of sugar - was not bad for you either - untill it was.
And thy had science to back it those claims... paid science.
Alot of research has been done on aspartam as well, and most of that research has been paid by coca-cola and other companies that uses aspartam in their products.
My concern is this: independent studies is often dismissed, while industry-funded studies often are not.
aspartam is no exception.
0 -
Do diet cokes hinder weight loss in any way other than make you hungrier ? They don't make me more hungry, even though there has been studies that say they do. I just want to know what do regular people who have lost weight think about them.Thanks !
Is diet coke bad for you?
In all honesty, I dont know. I drink my diet coke daily, but im trying to reduce it. (in the past i would drink 1-2 liters daily, now im down to 0,5L)
I see most people here say its totally harmless. I think thats a bold statement, because history shows us that "science" cant always be trusted.
Smoking was not bad for you either for many many many years - untill it was.
Sugar - any amount of sugar - was not bad for you either - untill it was.
And thy had science to back it those claims... paid science.
Alot of research has been done on aspartam as well, and most of that research has been paid by coca-cola and other companies that uses aspartam in their products.
My concern is this: independent studies is often dismissed, while industry-funded studies often are not.
aspartam is no exception.
Neither of those things are actually true.4 -
Do diet cokes hinder weight loss in any way other than make you hungrier ? They don't make me more hungry, even though there has been studies that say they do. I just want to know what do regular people who have lost weight think about them.Thanks !
Is diet coke bad for you?
In all honesty, I dont know. I drink my diet coke daily, but im trying to reduce it. (in the past i would drink 1-2 liters daily, now im down to 0,5L)
I see most people here say its totally harmless. I think thats a bold statement, because history shows us that "science" cant always be trusted.
Smoking was not bad for you either for many many many years - untill it was.
Sugar - any amount of sugar - was not bad for you either - untill it was.
And thy had science to back it those claims... paid science.
Alot of research has been done on aspartam as well, and most of that research has been paid by coca-cola and other companies that uses aspartam in their products.
My concern is this: independent studies is often dismissed, while industry-funded studies often are not.
aspartam is no exception.
I posted my latest health screening/blood test a few pages back-I drink diet soda daily and I'm in excellent health and weight. I have actual hard data showing that diet soda is not causing weight gain/high glucose numbers etc etc (what others are claiming happens when diet soda is consumed). So for me personally, the whole 'is diet soda evil' debate makes me roll my eyes just a little bit
3 -
stevencloser wrote: »Do diet cokes hinder weight loss in any way other than make you hungrier ? They don't make me more hungry, even though there has been studies that say they do. I just want to know what do regular people who have lost weight think about them.Thanks !
Is diet coke bad for you?
In all honesty, I dont know. I drink my diet coke daily, but im trying to reduce it. (in the past i would drink 1-2 liters daily, now im down to 0,5L)
I see most people here say its totally harmless. I think thats a bold statement, because history shows us that "science" cant always be trusted.
Smoking was not bad for you either for many many many years - untill it was.
Sugar - any amount of sugar - was not bad for you either - untill it was.
And thy had science to back it those claims... paid science.
Alot of research has been done on aspartam as well, and most of that research has been paid by coca-cola and other companies that uses aspartam in their products.
My concern is this: independent studies is often dismissed, while industry-funded studies often are not.
aspartam is no exception.
Neither of those things are actually true.
ok then ..0 -
Do diet cokes hinder weight loss in any way other than make you hungrier ? They don't make me more hungry, even though there has been studies that say they do. I just want to know what do regular people who have lost weight think about them.Thanks !
Is diet coke bad for you?
In all honesty, I dont know. I drink my diet coke daily, but im trying to reduce it. (in the past i would drink 1-2 liters daily, now im down to 0,5L)
I see most people here say its totally harmless. I think thats a bold statement, because history shows us that "science" cant always be trusted.
Smoking was not bad for you either for many many many years - untill it was.
Sugar - any amount of sugar - was not bad for you either - untill it was.
And thy had science to back it those claims... paid science.
Alot of research has been done on aspartam as well, and most of that research has been paid by coca-cola and other companies that uses aspartam in their products.
My concern is this: independent studies is often dismissed, while industry-funded studies often are not.
aspartam is no exception.
I don't understand this tinfoil-hat type of thinking. I get that it is beneficial to be skeptical of a lot of things. I'm skeptical of anything that Dr. Oz claims, for example.
But the fact that the ingredients in diet soda are very well-known components that have been shown time and time again to have no real negative effects in the amounts that we consume in diet soda is pretty hard to dispute. Aspartame, for example, is made of two amino acids which are consumed in much larger quantities basically every day by everyone. Why would you think that this is harmful? Is it because it's sweet? Is it because you are afraid that the companies manufacturing it are not being honest about what it's made of and that every company producing aspartame is adding this secret poison ingredient and no one has found out about it yet? Is it because of the scary sounding name? I'm genuinely curious.
What independent studies are you referring to? Can you post some of them?7 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »Do diet cokes hinder weight loss in any way other than make you hungrier ? They don't make me more hungry, even though there has been studies that say they do. I just want to know what do regular people who have lost weight think about them.Thanks !
Is diet coke bad for you?
In all honesty, I dont know. I drink my diet coke daily, but im trying to reduce it. (in the past i would drink 1-2 liters daily, now im down to 0,5L)
I see most people here say its totally harmless. I think thats a bold statement, because history shows us that "science" cant always be trusted.
Smoking was not bad for you either for many many many years - untill it was.
Sugar - any amount of sugar - was not bad for you either - untill it was.
And thy had science to back it those claims... paid science.
Alot of research has been done on aspartam as well, and most of that research has been paid by coca-cola and other companies that uses aspartam in their products.
My concern is this: independent studies is often dismissed, while industry-funded studies often are not.
aspartam is no exception.
I posted my latest health screening/blood test a few pages back-I drink diet soda daily and I'm in excellent health and weight. I have actual hard data showing that diet soda is not causing weight gain/high glucose numbers etc etc (what others are claiming happens when diet soda is consumed). So for me personally, the whole 'is diet soda evil' debate makes me roll my eyes just a little bit
Im not a fear mongering type. Fear mongering contributes to nothing good other that a great deal of confusion. Anything in moderation is most likely a safe bet in life - and something that most of us can live by.
My point was this: I would not throw out advice on a forum claiming that aspartam will do you no harm, because I simply cant say for sure.
And as i also said, I drink my diet coke daily.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Do diet cokes hinder weight loss in any way other than make you hungrier ? They don't make me more hungry, even though there has been studies that say they do. I just want to know what do regular people who have lost weight think about them.Thanks !
Is diet coke bad for you?
In all honesty, I dont know. I drink my diet coke daily, but im trying to reduce it. (in the past i would drink 1-2 liters daily, now im down to 0,5L)
I see most people here say its totally harmless. I think thats a bold statement, because history shows us that "science" cant always be trusted.
Smoking was not bad for you either for many many many years - untill it was.
Sugar - any amount of sugar - was not bad for you either - untill it was.
And thy had science to back it those claims... paid science.
Alot of research has been done on aspartam as well, and most of that research has been paid by coca-cola and other companies that uses aspartam in their products.
My concern is this: independent studies is often dismissed, while industry-funded studies often are not.
aspartam is no exception.
I don't understand this tinfoil-hat type of thinking. I get that it is beneficial to be skeptical of a lot of things. I'm skeptical of anything that Dr. Oz claims, for example.
But the fact that the ingredients in diet soda are very well-known components that have been shown time and time again to have no real negative effects in the amounts that we consume in diet soda is pretty hard to dispute. Aspartame, for example, is made of two amino acids which are consumed in much larger quantities basically every day by everyone. Why would you think that this is harmful? Is it because it's sweet? Is it because you are afraid that the companies manufacturing it are not being honest about what it's made of and that every company producing aspartame is adding this secret poison ingredient and no one has found out about it yet? Is it because of the scary sounding name? I'm genuinely curious.
What independent studies are you referring to? Can you post some of them?
When you start your sentence with "tin foil hat thinking" im seriously losing interest in having any kind of debate with you.
Also, i see my original post was marked as flagged - not saying its you but man ...
0 -
cerise_noir wrote: »Dreamyriver wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Frank Gallagher would be SO proud....nutmegoreo wrote: »
That seems like internet begging. At least this way I'm doing a goods for services and can feel productive. :laugh:
That's not Frank, this is Frank:
Flipping Americans, coming over here, stealing our amazingly awesome dramas... (well, when I say 'here', I don't mean 'here', because I'm now in Australia, but 'here', the UK)
Ugh. No, just no.
I'm an Aussie. I've watched both versions and I fall asleep during the UK version. You've obviously never even given the US version a chance. At least I've given the original a chance. Of course the US couldn't relate to the UK version hence the US version. They are quite different. And for the record, your rant about "Americans stealing UK shows"? Don't get me started on the opposite.
There's only one person ranting here and it ain't me. My comment was a joke, a play on the whinge from Brits about Americans during World War 2, sorry if you failed to comprehend that before you took umbrage, I shall endeavour to do better next time.
And I did give the US one a chance, was excited in fact to find it aired here - it would have been much better (in my opinion) if they'd just taken the idea as inspiration and made it their own and changed the character names, rather than causing a huge disconnect, more like they did with Archie Bunker when they adapted Alf Garnett. Anyhoo, none of this is much to do with diet Coke - although unfounded assumptions would put it right up there
<<smiley face, just for your benefit. 2 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Do diet cokes hinder weight loss in any way other than make you hungrier ? They don't make me more hungry, even though there has been studies that say they do. I just want to know what do regular people who have lost weight think about them.Thanks !
Is diet coke bad for you?
In all honesty, I dont know. I drink my diet coke daily, but im trying to reduce it. (in the past i would drink 1-2 liters daily, now im down to 0,5L)
I see most people here say its totally harmless. I think thats a bold statement, because history shows us that "science" cant always be trusted.
Smoking was not bad for you either for many many many years - untill it was.
Sugar - any amount of sugar - was not bad for you either - untill it was.
And thy had science to back it those claims... paid science.
Alot of research has been done on aspartam as well, and most of that research has been paid by coca-cola and other companies that uses aspartam in their products.
My concern is this: independent studies is often dismissed, while industry-funded studies often are not.
aspartam is no exception.
I don't understand this tinfoil-hat type of thinking. I get that it is beneficial to be skeptical of a lot of things. I'm skeptical of anything that Dr. Oz claims, for example.
But the fact that the ingredients in diet soda are very well-known components that have been shown time and time again to have no real negative effects in the amounts that we consume in diet soda is pretty hard to dispute. Aspartame, for example, is made of two amino acids which are consumed in much larger quantities basically every day by everyone. Why would you think that this is harmful? Is it because it's sweet? Is it because you are afraid that the companies manufacturing it are not being honest about what it's made of and that every company producing aspartame is adding this secret poison ingredient and no one has found out about it yet? Is it because of the scary sounding name? I'm genuinely curious.
What independent studies are you referring to? Can you post some of them?
When you start your sentence with "tin foil hat thinking" im seriously losing interest in having any kind of debate with you.
Also, i see my original post was marked as flagged - not saying its you but man ...
I don't generally flag posts unless they are legitimately spam or abuse. Even then it's few and far between. So no, not me.
I'm sorry if my term offended you - I honestly don't know how else to put it. Conspiracy theory mindset, perhaps? "I don't understand this [conspiracy theory mindset]." Either way, it just seems silly to me to completely discredit all of the research that has been done on very well-known substances because of where the money came from.
I am still interested in looking at the "independent studies" that you referred to in your post, if you have links to them. Unless responding to the tinfoil hat comment was your way of deflecting my questions so that you didn't have to think about them or answer them. If so, that's fine - I will just assume that you don't have any real answers or studies to post and be on my merry way.
4 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »Do diet cokes hinder weight loss in any way other than make you hungrier ? They don't make me more hungry, even though there has been studies that say they do. I just want to know what do regular people who have lost weight think about them.Thanks !
Is diet coke bad for you?
In all honesty, I dont know. I drink my diet coke daily, but im trying to reduce it. (in the past i would drink 1-2 liters daily, now im down to 0,5L)
I see most people here say its totally harmless. I think thats a bold statement, because history shows us that "science" cant always be trusted.
Smoking was not bad for you either for many many many years - untill it was.
Sugar - any amount of sugar - was not bad for you either - untill it was.
And thy had science to back it those claims... paid science.
Alot of research has been done on aspartam as well, and most of that research has been paid by coca-cola and other companies that uses aspartam in their products.
My concern is this: independent studies is often dismissed, while industry-funded studies often are not.
aspartam is no exception.
I posted my latest health screening/blood test a few pages back-I drink diet soda daily and I'm in excellent health and weight. I have actual hard data showing that diet soda is not causing weight gain/high glucose numbers etc etc (what others are claiming happens when diet soda is consumed). So for me personally, the whole 'is diet soda evil' debate makes me roll my eyes just a little bit
Im not a fear mongering type. Fear mongering contributes to nothing good other that a great deal of confusion. Anything in moderation is most likely a safe bet in life - and something that most of us can live by.
My point was this: I would not throw out advice on a forum claiming that aspartam will do you no harm, because I simply cant say for sure.
And as i also said, I drink my diet coke daily.
I don't get this. People used to say that potatoes were poison and would kill you. I must trust science in believing that they will not, and plus so far I don't seem to be dead, but under your logic, if someone posts "should I give up potatoes? I understand that they are deadly," I would have to say "well, I cannot say for sure." Maybe they will, maybe they won't, maybe you should stop eating them just in case.1 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »Chilli7777 wrote: »Any type of soda, sugar free or otherwise, expands the tummy and will make you feel hungry. Diet coke is so full of chemicals. It wont hinder your weight loss if you dont eat extra food, but it is bad for youe overall health in so many othet ways. Personally I dont touch it.
And here I was pretty sure that the stomach stretching is one of the physical signals of fullness and why so many are successful at killing hunger with large volumes of food.
Yes. It gives me such a headache when someone says "drink water to make your stomach feel full and you won't feel hungry" and then "don't drink soda because it makes your stomach feel full and you'll get hungrier." Please stop it.
It's the bubble's fault. <nods>
2 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Do diet cokes hinder weight loss in any way other than make you hungrier ? They don't make me more hungry, even though there has been studies that say they do. I just want to know what do regular people who have lost weight think about them.Thanks !
Is diet coke bad for you?
In all honesty, I dont know. I drink my diet coke daily, but im trying to reduce it. (in the past i would drink 1-2 liters daily, now im down to 0,5L)
I see most people here say its totally harmless. I think thats a bold statement, because history shows us that "science" cant always be trusted.
Smoking was not bad for you either for many many many years - untill it was.
Sugar - any amount of sugar - was not bad for you either - untill it was.
And thy had science to back it those claims... paid science.
Alot of research has been done on aspartam as well, and most of that research has been paid by coca-cola and other companies that uses aspartam in their products.
My concern is this: independent studies is often dismissed, while industry-funded studies often are not.
aspartam is no exception.
I don't understand this tinfoil-hat type of thinking. I get that it is beneficial to be skeptical of a lot of things. I'm skeptical of anything that Dr. Oz claims, for example.
But the fact that the ingredients in diet soda are very well-known components that have been shown time and time again to have no real negative effects in the amounts that we consume in diet soda is pretty hard to dispute. Aspartame, for example, is made of two amino acids which are consumed in much larger quantities basically every day by everyone. Why would you think that this is harmful? Is it because it's sweet? Is it because you are afraid that the companies manufacturing it are not being honest about what it's made of and that every company producing aspartame is adding this secret poison ingredient and no one has found out about it yet? Is it because of the scary sounding name? I'm genuinely curious.
What independent studies are you referring to? Can you post some of them?
When you start your sentence with "tin foil hat thinking" im seriously losing interest in having any kind of debate with you.
Also, i see my original post was marked as flagged - not saying its you but man ...
I don't generally flag posts unless they are legitimately spam or abuse. Even then it's few and far between. So no, not me.
I'm sorry if my term offended you - I honestly don't know how else to put it. Conspiracy theory mindset, perhaps? "I don't understand this [conspiracy theory mindset]." Either way, it just seems silly to me to completely discredit all of the research that has been done on very well-known substances because of where the money came from.
I am still interested in looking at the "independent studies" that you referred to in your post, if you have links to them. Unless responding to the tinfoil hat comment was your way of deflecting my questions so that you didn't have to think about them or answer them. If so, that's fine - I will just assume that you don't have any real answers or studies to post and be on my merry way.
Ramazzini studies comes to mind. Independant and dismissed.
But its really besides my point. Im not gonna sit on a forum and claim that Diet-coke is risk free, simply because I DONT KNOW.
I cant say its the opposite either.
All I know is this: Beeing a little sceptical on the various studies can often be smart.
And there is ALOT of studies out there claiming all sort of things, and they will often contradict each other because different interests dictates it.
Is a glass red wine daily really benificial for your health?
What about chocolate?
I dont know, and to be honest, I dont really care, but you wont see me on a forum claiming its good or bad either and THAT was my point.
Now if you excuse me, ill take my tin foil hat and leave this thread behind.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Do diet cokes hinder weight loss in any way other than make you hungrier ? They don't make me more hungry, even though there has been studies that say they do. I just want to know what do regular people who have lost weight think about them.Thanks !
Is diet coke bad for you?
In all honesty, I dont know. I drink my diet coke daily, but im trying to reduce it. (in the past i would drink 1-2 liters daily, now im down to 0,5L)
I see most people here say its totally harmless. I think thats a bold statement, because history shows us that "science" cant always be trusted.
Smoking was not bad for you either for many many many years - untill it was.
Sugar - any amount of sugar - was not bad for you either - untill it was.
And thy had science to back it those claims... paid science.
Alot of research has been done on aspartam as well, and most of that research has been paid by coca-cola and other companies that uses aspartam in their products.
My concern is this: independent studies is often dismissed, while industry-funded studies often are not.
aspartam is no exception.
Neither of those things are actually true.
ok then ..
Doctors did recommend smoking cigarettes for pregnant women...I don't know what the prevailing view on sugar is...it all seems very convoluted to me.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
It's too late to change my career path now. My MFP course is set for defending aspartame's reputation, it seems.
O-Chem was truly the devils work. Clearly a contradiction in terms anyways...organic chemistry? More like artificial chemistry! Because organic means real and chemistry isn't real, its fake!
You are clearly a shill to Big-Sweetner, making the big bucks doing your chemistry. We all know chemists make the big bucks. Scientists, living in their ivory tower castles with their lack of debt and incomes matching their education level. Pshaw
I'm not going to fight you on the horrors of organic chemistry, I hate it myself despite having enough graduate credits in it to teach it. I'm an analytical & environmental chemist all the way (the only chemistry that actually makes sense).
I must be in Big-Aspartame's pocket. Getting all that money to falsely prove their products are safe, while kicking puppies and poisoning water supplies. Man it's nice to be a grad student.3 -
Do diet cokes hinder weight loss in any way other than make you hungrier ? They don't make me more hungry, even though there has been studies that say they do. I just want to know what do regular people who have lost weight think about them.Thanks !
Is diet coke bad for you?
In all honesty, I dont know. I drink my diet coke daily, but im trying to reduce it. (in the past i would drink 1-2 liters daily, now im down to 0,5L)
I see most people here say its totally harmless. I think thats a bold statement, because history shows us that "science" cant always be trusted.
Smoking was not bad for you either for many many many years - untill it was.
Sugar - any amount of sugar - was not bad for you either - untill it was.
And thy had science to back it those claims... paid science.
Alot of research has been done on aspartam as well, and most of that research has been paid by coca-cola and other companies that uses aspartam in their products.
My concern is this: independent studies is often dismissed, while industry-funded studies often are not.
aspartam is no exception.
Actually it wasn't science backing up those claims, it was the media. The general public rarely bothers to look at actual science (ie published studies in scientific journals) they instead rely on the general media to report scientific findings and the general media is HORRIBLE at representing science. They sensationalize it, they misreport it, they interpret it without understanding it and view it through the lens of their opinion and then report that like its what Science with a capitol S says. Then people look back at all that misinformation and point at somehow it being Science itself that misinformed them. No.
This is so true it hurts:
Scientific publications are very dry, they aren't the ones making claims like "sugar is good for you" or "sugar is bad for you" that is the media deciding thats what the science means based on absolutely no actual education on the matter using only their own opinions.
With that comic in mind what you are basically doing is looking back at the media reporting how bad "A" is, attributing that information to Science and then in retrospect 40 years later saying how "wrong" science was that "A" was bad. What Science says is more along the lines of "carbon dervided from galactose was monitored via administration of C14 radiolabeled galactose to balbC mice in daily bolous of 10mg/kG. C14 was located in a 1:2 molar split between expelled CO2 and triglycerides". Media takes that up and says "Science shows sugar molecules are in our air and you breath them in every day!" Then an internet blog talks about how refined sugars end up in our air and you breath them in which is why everyone is getting fat. That idea picks up steam in the public conciousness and then is later debunked then people act smug about how wrong Science is. Its ridiculous.
Medical doctors are people, they aren't Science. Medical doctors undoubtably were under the misinformation common back then that smoking wasn't harmful to your health. But that belief wasn't based on a scientific study. It was based on media reporting of scientific results that was misrepresented in large part due to private interests.
Its the media you have to be concerned by, don't conflate the media with the Science itself.
I see people claim Science says something or claims Science was wrong when they said this and then when asked to provide where Science made that claim they link to some internet story or a publication in Newsweek or something. That isn't Science.
Frankly the public has basically little to know understanding of the actual science because the media does a crap job representing it and no one bothers to learn enough to be able to read and understand the actual scientific publications in actual science journals. That isn't really the fault of the public, if the public had time to learn enough to fully understand a scientific publication then they'd be a scientist.
BTW "Scientific American" is not a scientific journal. I get that all the time too.
10 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »ronjsteele1 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »For example, if someone says the FDA reports 98 known side effects of aspartame, it should be trivially easy to point to the FDA listing them and identifying them in an official source, no?
Since I know exactly where this claim comes from and it proves how ron didn't actually even research his own sources and is just repeating something he heard somewhere, let me enlighten you.
Here: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/jan03/012203/02p-0317_emc-000199.txt
This is what the FDA calls a docket. What is a docket you may ask?
"The system allows consumers to access FDA's administrative proceedings and rule-making documents more readily, including Federal Registers, Petitions, supporting documents and comments."
and "By law, anyone can participate in the rule-making process by commenting in writing on rules FDA proposes. FDA routinely allows plenty of time for public input and carefully considers these comments when it draws up a final rule."
The link above is a docket comment sent TO the FDA by a certain Mark Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Information Center, which appears to consist of Mark Gold, Mark Gold, Mark Gold and Mark Gold. A google search of the Center shows you exactly what kind of people use that as their source.
And right now, I can either choose to get my workout in or sit here and argue with people and lose my workout time. I'd rather workout. It burns more calories.
Oddly, most of my posts on here some from rest periods while I'm working out. Not a shocker though at your thought process. On MFP all the time must equal "puts MFP ahead of working out". Just another correlation does not equal causation. Who usually likes to use correlation as a defense? Quacks.
I did not say being on mfp meant one is putting it ahead of working out so don't put words in mouth. I specifically said *I* had a choice to make.
As for the fda link and not trusting the fda, I was simply trying to grab a link off of a page that most of you worship as truth. Had I posted a link from an alternative site (which, quite frankly, I inadvertently did anyway) someone would have said it wasn't a valid site. So no matter what I had posted with that information you would have blown it off anyway. There is no point with you people.
And Aaron, for the record, that was not an underhanded compliment. It was absolutely sincere. I have not read everything you've ever posted on mfp. Sorry you can't take it for what it was.
FWIW my homeopath was a chemist for 10yrs before she went back to school to become a homeopath. She's amazingly intelligent and her chemistry background has proven useful in her practice.
Have a nice day folks. Time for me to get to work.
My grandmother from Eastern Europe has a recipe using freshly cut young rhubarb which she has used for many years to get rid of non-melanoma skin cancers like BCCs and SCCs. Everyone in her village swears by it.
Your first question shouldn't be "Where can I buy it?" it should be "Does it work?"
I don't know if it works or not, I just now made it up. You can very quickly and easily find out by typing "Rhubarb, efficacy and basal cell carcinoma" into Google Scholar. Going to a website that sells rhubarb and rhubarb-related cancer cures is not a substitute for peer-reviewed journals and double-blind experimental setups.
Say what you will about flaws in the scientific community and experimental method in particular, but despite mistakes, the trend over time is to provide solid evidence for or against a theory.
One day somebody just made up the concept of homeopathy. Nothing wrong with that. However, if after decades, there is no good evidence showing any effect and plenty of evidence showing no difference between water banged against a saddle and plain water, your brain should be shouting "Hang on a second, maybe this doesn't work?"
If you brain is not sending this message, can I interest you in my grandmother's secret rhubarb recipe?
Sorry about the rant. Homeopathy is so silly it gives me a headache.7 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Do diet cokes hinder weight loss in any way other than make you hungrier ? They don't make me more hungry, even though there has been studies that say they do. I just want to know what do regular people who have lost weight think about them.Thanks !
Is diet coke bad for you?
In all honesty, I dont know. I drink my diet coke daily, but im trying to reduce it. (in the past i would drink 1-2 liters daily, now im down to 0,5L)
I see most people here say its totally harmless. I think thats a bold statement, because history shows us that "science" cant always be trusted.
Smoking was not bad for you either for many many many years - untill it was.
Sugar - any amount of sugar - was not bad for you either - untill it was.
And thy had science to back it those claims... paid science.
Alot of research has been done on aspartam as well, and most of that research has been paid by coca-cola and other companies that uses aspartam in their products.
My concern is this: independent studies is often dismissed, while industry-funded studies often are not.
aspartam is no exception.
I don't understand this tinfoil-hat type of thinking. I get that it is beneficial to be skeptical of a lot of things. I'm skeptical of anything that Dr. Oz claims, for example.
But the fact that the ingredients in diet soda are very well-known components that have been shown time and time again to have no real negative effects in the amounts that we consume in diet soda is pretty hard to dispute. Aspartame, for example, is made of two amino acids which are consumed in much larger quantities basically every day by everyone. Why would you think that this is harmful? Is it because it's sweet? Is it because you are afraid that the companies manufacturing it are not being honest about what it's made of and that every company producing aspartame is adding this secret poison ingredient and no one has found out about it yet? Is it because of the scary sounding name? I'm genuinely curious.
What independent studies are you referring to? Can you post some of them?
When you start your sentence with "tin foil hat thinking" im seriously losing interest in having any kind of debate with you.
Also, i see my original post was marked as flagged - not saying its you but man ...
I don't generally flag posts unless they are legitimately spam or abuse. Even then it's few and far between. So no, not me.
I'm sorry if my term offended you - I honestly don't know how else to put it. Conspiracy theory mindset, perhaps? "I don't understand this [conspiracy theory mindset]." Either way, it just seems silly to me to completely discredit all of the research that has been done on very well-known substances because of where the money came from.
I am still interested in looking at the "independent studies" that you referred to in your post, if you have links to them. Unless responding to the tinfoil hat comment was your way of deflecting my questions so that you didn't have to think about them or answer them. If so, that's fine - I will just assume that you don't have any real answers or studies to post and be on my merry way.
Ramazzini studies comes to mind. Independant and dismissed.
But its really besides my point. Im not gonna sit on a forum and claim that Diet-coke is risk free, simply because I DONT KNOW.
I cant say its the opposite either.
All I know is this: Beeing a little sceptical on the various studies can often be smart.
And there is ALOT of studies out there claiming all sort of things, and they will often contradict each other because different interests dictates it.
Is a glass red wine daily really benificial for your health?
What about chocolate?
I dont know, and to be honest, I dont really care, but you wont see me on a forum claiming its good or bad either and THAT was my point.
Now if you excuse me, ill take my tin foil hat and leave this thread behind.
And the Ramazzini institute is dismissed for a good reason.
http://www.foodinsight.org/splenda-sucralose-ramazzini-soffritti-safety-cancer-study
And lastly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77GGn-E607E 5 -
Man it's nice to be a grad student.
All the money, all the credit, all the fame amirite?
Nothing like amassing college debt to start a position that pays about the same as flipping burgers at MickyDs while working 60 hour weeks in a hugely stressful enviornment where there is no guarantee that the years and years of work you put in will amount to anything. Shill.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions