Somebody lectured me about Splenda today
Options
Replies
-
NicoleHaki wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »jadkins389 wrote: »As a nutritionist I have to put my two cents in and say that research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss. Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such. Honey or Stevia are your best options for low-glycemic sweeteners. That being said, even as a nutritionist, we meet people where they are. Everyone is different, everyone likes different things, and everyone is willing to sacrifice different things to achieve their goals.
Now as a human being, I must say it is completely inappropriate to confront a stranger in public telling them what they are doing "wrong". Even if you think you are "right", it is still just wrong.
Let me guess. You're a nutritionist, but not a dietitian, right?
I'm glad that the dietitian I see actually uses science, and not woo.
How is this not actual science? She's talking about glycemic indexes. Do you want her to pull some obscure study that took place over a course of months and use that as evidence for or against artificial sweeteners? What's wrong with using common sense?
Using science-y words is not what makes a conclusion "science".
Personally, I prefer sugar, because humans have been eating it and thriving (long enough to breed, at least), for hundreds to thousands of years. But not in coffee, because I think sweet coffee is yucky. Neither of those beliefs are science, either.
Again, what part of what she says do you find scientifically faulty? Do you disagree that some sweeteners have lower glycemic indexes than others?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?
Let's take a look at the post in question, shall we?jadkins389 wrote: »As a nutritionist I have to put my two cents in and say that research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss. Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such. Honey or Stevia are your best options for low-glycemic sweeteners. That being said, even as a nutritionist, we meet people where they are. Everyone is different, everyone likes different things, and everyone is willing to sacrifice different things to achieve their goals.
Now as a human being, I must say it is completely inappropriate to confront a stranger in public telling them what they are doing "wrong". Even if you think you are "right", it is still just wrong.
Broken down into the individual points of contention:jadkins389 wrote: »Research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss.
Maybe. I haven't seen any research in that direction. If foods/beverages using artificial sweeteners are used to replace items with higher calorie counts, then they can help with help with weight loss. If the food/beverage in question is compensated somewhere else (more chocolate and ice cream), then the likelyhood of them helping weight loss are zilch.
Bottom line: what matters is how much overall someone is eating.jadkins389 wrote: »Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such.
Ask any diabetic how their insulin spikes after ingesting an artificially sweetened beverage. Hint: it doesn't. Meaning, your body does NOT treat your body as it would sugar. Unless I misunderstood the point of that sentence? It's not very well formulated.jadkins389 wrote: »Honey or Stevia are your best option for low-glycemic sweeteners.
3 Problems for me here:
a) Honey is contra-indicated for pregnant and nursing mothers, as well as small children (risk of contamination with spores of bacteria which naturally occur in the honey and can only be removed with high temperature sterilization found only in industrial processes. Too iffy in my opinion to blanket recommend it en lieu of sweeteners.
b) Stevia tastes bitter and nasty (to me and pretty much any one in my family). Why would anyone want to ingest that? (your milage may vary)
c) glycemic index is only relevant to type 2 diabetics. But even then it is not necessary to manage the disease. Managing intake in general and regular movement do more on that end.jadkins389 wrote: »That being said, even as a nutritionist, we meet people where they are. Everyone is different, everyone likes different things, and everyone is willing to sacrifice different things to achieve their goals.
This is probably the one thing I can truly stand behind. Everyone's tastes and preferences are different. Everyone's life circumstances are different. I might nitpick with the choice of 'sacrifice' but that's just me trying to find a more positive way to word things in general.
EDIT: fixed my quotes...
So first of all if these are the points that are important to you you could have brought them up earlier instead of discrediting Jatkins on the grounds of being a nutritionist. Second of all you should try to understand that a lot of what you're saying is subjective - I don't like Stevia either, but that's a personal preference. And the idea that glycemic index is only relevant to type 2 diabetics is also a personal view - many people (including myself and the nutritionist who wrote this) do view glycemic index as a measure that's worth taking into consideration.
That's because neither you nor the "nutritionist" apparently understand that glycemic index is only relevant when a particular food/substance is eaten in complete isolation, while in a fasted state. When eaten in combination with other foods, or when there is already food in the gut being digested, the GI of any particular substance is modified by the GI/content of the other foods and basically becomes a moot point. There's nothing "subjective" about that.
So basically, it's cherry-picking a particular data point in order to further unwarranted fearmongering.
[ETA:] Not sure what this even has to do with the OP or thread topic, since the GI of Splenda (sucralose) is zero. As is aspartame. Nothing "subjective" about that either.21 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »jadkins389 wrote: »As a nutritionist I have to put my two cents in and say that research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss. Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such. Honey or Stevia are your best options for low-glycemic sweeteners. That being said, even as a nutritionist, we meet people where they are. Everyone is different, everyone likes different things, and everyone is willing to sacrifice different things to achieve their goals.
Now as a human being, I must say it is completely inappropriate to confront a stranger in public telling them what they are doing "wrong". Even if you think you are "right", it is still just wrong.
Let me guess. You're a nutritionist, but not a dietitian, right?
I'm glad that the dietitian I see actually uses science, and not woo.
How is this not actual science? She's talking about glycemic indexes. Do you want her to pull some obscure study that took place over a course of months and use that as evidence for or against artificial sweeteners? What's wrong with using common sense?
Using science-y words is not what makes a conclusion "science".
Personally, I prefer sugar, because humans have been eating it and thriving (long enough to breed, at least), for hundreds to thousands of years. But not in coffee, because I think sweet coffee is yucky. Neither of those beliefs are science, either.
Again, what part of what she says do you find scientifically faulty? Do you disagree that some sweeteners have lower glycemic indexes than others?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?
here you go again.NicoleHaki wrote: »That said, I also hate artificial sweeteners and sometimes catch myself making comments to people who choose Splenda or diet soda. I don't do it to be rude but to me it's like watching someone smoking a cigarette - I feel like maybe I can save them! Not saying this to justify her rudeness, but saying it because maybe her intentions weren't that bad - it genuinely pains me to see people drink soda or put Splenda in their coffee or tea.
Since you seem to keep forgetting.
Where is the advice? If my family members smoked or consumed artificial sweeteners (which they don't - we're a pretty healthy family), I would encourage them to make choices I considered to be better based on the correlational studies I've seen and the fact that I don't see a compelling benefit to consuming artificial sweeteners - that's a hypothetical, and I haven't given advice to anyone on this forum at all.
On a public forum, where a few people are posting but many people reading, I tend to consider it tantamount to advice when I post anything as if it were an established truth. Therefore, I try to make sure I keep it clearly-stated, well-reasoned and at least somewhat scientifically supported. (I don't always succeed.)
I also routinely post about my personal choices and opinions, but try to be clear that that's what they are, and some of my thinking behind them.
Back a few pages, I posted that I thought sugar was my best choice, and I said why, said it was unscientific, didn't say I'd be advising my extended family to follow that choice or be pained when I couldn't tell strangers not to eat sweeteners other than sugar. I got zip-zero-nada pushback on the sugar preference, and no "woos" (I'll get some woos on it now, because that's how MFP behaves. Love ya, MFP!).
People who post controversial opinions as if they were established truth tend to get quite a lot of push-back around here. I think that's helpful to the reader; it's certainly been helpful to me as a reader.
Back in the OP, the story was about someone who expressed an opinion to a stranger as if it were fact. Most people considered that inappropriate.
In retrospect, I probably should have taken creative liberties with that incident and said she'd lectured me about nuts in my salad or something.
I absolutely agree that it's necessary to refute false information when it pops up - this is one of the few forums where people are willing to put the time and effort into not only countering alarmist claims (which can add tremendous stress into the lives of people who are already anxious about their health), but going a step further and laying out the process of vetting sources so people can use the tools for themselves.
I often wonder about the motivation of people who derail threads to grandstand their own personal agenda, when there are current threads already going that discuss the topic in great detail. I've mostly come to the conclusion that it's attention-seeking - suddenly the thread is all about YOU, regardless of the original topic.
Who's attention-seeking? I agreed with your point that nobody should be telling strangers what to consume and what not to consume. I also kind of see why she felt compelled to say something - people do have strong feelings about artificial sweeteners. I made my personal view clear and feel that it is strongly supported by research that I have seen - some have argued that this research isn't compelling to them because it's correlational, and I would argue that of course it's correlational, because of the ethical concerns that would make it difficult to establish a more clear connection between artificial sweeteners and disease. I made a comment on what I would choose for myself and the people I care about - this isn't advice to other readers and it's also not a defense of the stranger who made a comment at Starbucks. I haven't seen the aspartame thread and don't particularly care to see it - I personally have read enough about artificial sweeteners to have formed an opinion. Why post this at all if you're not willing to hear people say something like...of course strangers at Starbucks shouldn't make comments, although I don't disagree with the thought process behind her point on artificial sweeteners. I would have made the same comment if a stranger made a comment about smoking a cigarette - it's not a polite thing to say, although I don't disagree with the sentiment.26 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »jadkins389 wrote: »As a nutritionist I have to put my two cents in and say that research shows that artificial sweeteners do not help with weight loss. Most are just synthetic versions of the sugar you are avoiding and your body treats it as such. Honey or Stevia are your best options for low-glycemic sweeteners. That being said, even as a nutritionist, we meet people where they are. Everyone is different, everyone likes different things, and everyone is willing to sacrifice different things to achieve their goals.
Now as a human being, I must say it is completely inappropriate to confront a stranger in public telling them what they are doing "wrong". Even if you think you are "right", it is still just wrong.
Let me guess. You're a nutritionist, but not a dietitian, right?
I'm glad that the dietitian I see actually uses science, and not woo.
How is this not actual science? She's talking about glycemic indexes. Do you want her to pull some obscure study that took place over a course of months and use that as evidence for or against artificial sweeteners? What's wrong with using common sense?
Using science-y words is not what makes a conclusion "science".
Personally, I prefer sugar, because humans have been eating it and thriving (long enough to breed, at least), for hundreds to thousands of years. But not in coffee, because I think sweet coffee is yucky. Neither of those beliefs are science, either.
Again, what part of what she says do you find scientifically faulty? Do you disagree that some sweeteners have lower glycemic indexes than others?
I'm not criticizing the source. I'm not interested enough: Like I said, I use a different thought process personally (one that isn't scientific, and I said so).
My thought process - plus the fact that it tastes better to me - leads me to prefer sugar. (I won't reject the occasional otherwise desirable food because it contains an artificial sweetener - dosage is relevant. I don't think about GI much because I'm not IR or diabetic, and rarely consume sweeteners outside complex foods that include fats, protein, fiber, so an individual ingredient's GI is immaterial. Context matters.)
I'm criticizing your defense of the source. It lacks substance, that's all.
I wasn't defending the source, I was asking CollectingBlues why he/she criticized the source as "woo." It seems like that is thrown around a lot here - if someone wants to disagree with a nutritionist, why not use some substance rather than criticizing the fact that he/she is a nutritionist?
Pretty simple really.
You're responding and behaving very typically for a nutritionist.
Poorly sourced, unsubstantiated, irrelevancies. Inability to articulately respond to criticism and continued reliance in outdated or feels based science.
I don't know if we're having the same conversation. First of all, I'm not a nutritionist, the nutritionist here is Jadkins. CollectingBlues responded to Jadkins suggesting that he/she wasn't using real science. My question is, what reason does CollectingBlues have to believe that Jadkins wasn't using science?
I apologize. You're giving advice just like a nutritionist and defending your thinking just like a nutritionist.
I stand corrected.
The rest of the points stand as written.
Additionally, the qualifications to be a "certified nutritionist" normally boils down to a 60 minute online click through course.
But what exactly did you find poorly sourced, unsubstantiated or irrelevant? And what advice did I give? It seems like you're emotionally objecting to nutritionists which I guess you're entitled to but you haven't particularly made a point either as to why CollectingBlues dismissed Jadkins' comment as "woo." What did Jadkins say that was so irrelevant?
here you go again.NicoleHaki wrote: »That said, I also hate artificial sweeteners and sometimes catch myself making comments to people who choose Splenda or diet soda. I don't do it to be rude but to me it's like watching someone smoking a cigarette - I feel like maybe I can save them! Not saying this to justify her rudeness, but saying it because maybe her intentions weren't that bad - it genuinely pains me to see people drink soda or put Splenda in their coffee or tea.
Since you seem to keep forgetting.
Where is the advice? If my family members smoked or consumed artificial sweeteners (which they don't - we're a pretty healthy family), I would encourage them to make choices I considered to be better based on the correlational studies I've seen and the fact that I don't see a compelling benefit to consuming artificial sweeteners - that's a hypothetical, and I haven't given advice to anyone on this forum at all.
On a public forum, where a few people are posting but many people reading, I tend to consider it tantamount to advice when I post anything as if it were an established truth. Therefore, I try to make sure I keep it clearly-stated, well-reasoned and at least somewhat scientifically supported. (I don't always succeed.)
I also routinely post about my personal choices and opinions, but try to be clear that that's what they are, and some of my thinking behind them.
Back a few pages, I posted that I thought sugar was my best choice, and I said why, said it was unscientific, didn't say I'd be advising my extended family to follow that choice or be pained when I couldn't tell strangers not to eat sweeteners other than sugar. I got zip-zero-nada pushback on the sugar preference, and no "woos" (I'll get some woos on it now, because that's how MFP behaves. Love ya, MFP!).
People who post controversial opinions as if they were established truth tend to get quite a lot of push-back around here. I think that's helpful to the reader; it's certainly been helpful to me as a reader.
Back in the OP, the story was about someone who expressed an opinion to a stranger as if it were fact. Most people considered that inappropriate.
In retrospect, I probably should have taken creative liberties with that incident and said she'd lectured me about nuts in my salad or something.
I absolutely agree that it's necessary to refute false information when it pops up - this is one of the few forums where people are willing to put the time and effort into not only countering alarmist claims (which can add tremendous stress into the lives of people who are already anxious about their health), but going a step further and laying out the process of vetting sources so people can use the tools for themselves.
I often wonder about the motivation of people who derail threads to grandstand their own personal agenda, when there are current threads already going that discuss the topic in great detail. I've mostly come to the conclusion that it's attention-seeking - suddenly the thread is all about YOU, regardless of the original topic.
Who's attention-seeking? I agreed with your point that nobody should be telling strangers what to consume and what not to consume. I also kind of see why she felt compelled to say something - people do have strong feelings about artificial sweeteners. I made my personal view clear and feel that it is strongly supported by research that I have seen - some have argued that this research isn't compelling to them because it's correlational, and I would argue that of course it's correlational, because of the ethical concerns that would make it difficult to establish a more clear connection between artificial sweeteners and disease. I made a comment on what I would choose for myself and the people I care about - this isn't advice to other readers and it's also not a defense of the stranger who made a comment at Starbucks. I haven't seen the aspartame thread and don't particularly care to see it - I personally have read enough about artificial sweeteners to have formed an opinion. Why post this at all if you're not willing to hear people say something like...of course strangers at Starbucks shouldn't make comments, although I don't disagree with the thought process behind her point on artificial sweeteners. I would have made the same comment if a stranger made a comment about smoking a cigarette - it's not a polite thing to say, although I don't disagree with the sentiment.
For the fun factor? And back to my conclusion...12 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »...I haven't seen the aspartame thread and don't particularly care to see it - I personally have read enough about artificial sweeteners to have formed an opinion...
So you don't think that understanding the scientific facts about something is important to help form an informed opinion?
The OP in that thread is a molecular biologist. Not a shill from Big Aspartame or some random derp spouting personal opinions without evidence to back them up. Definitely worth a read for anybody with an open mind who's willing to realize that their 'opinions' might be based upon propaganda rather than scientific fact.18 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »...I haven't seen the aspartame thread and don't particularly care to see it - I personally have read enough about artificial sweeteners to have formed an opinion...
So you don't think that understanding the scientific facts about something is important to help form an informed opinion?
The OP in that thread is a molecular biologist. Not a shill from Big Aspartame or some random derp spouting personal opinions without evidence to back them up. Definitely worth a read for anybody with an open mind who's willing to realize that their 'opinions' might be based upon propaganda rather than scientific fact.
/wave. Hey there. Not really following this thread in any detail really but thought I'd give a wave assuming you are referring to me. What was the question?13 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »...I haven't seen the aspartame thread and don't particularly care to see it - I personally have read enough about artificial sweeteners to have formed an opinion...
So you don't think that understanding the scientific facts about something is important to help form an informed opinion?
The OP in that thread is a molecular biologist. Not a shill from Big Aspartame or some random derp spouting personal opinions without evidence to back them up. Definitely worth a read for anybody with an open mind who's willing to realize that their 'opinions' might be based upon propaganda rather than scientific fact.
I've just seen enough scientific data to satisfy my curiosity on this topic. The same way I would view cigarettes or certain drugs - I haven't read long internet threads about those things, but I've seen enough to overcome any desire I might have ever theoretically had to mess with those things.19 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »...I haven't seen the aspartame thread and don't particularly care to see it - I personally have read enough about artificial sweeteners to have formed an opinion...
So you don't think that understanding the scientific facts about something is important to help form an informed opinion?
The OP in that thread is a molecular biologist. Not a shill from Big Aspartame or some random derp spouting personal opinions without evidence to back them up. Definitely worth a read for anybody with an open mind who's willing to realize that their 'opinions' might be based upon propaganda rather than scientific fact.
/wave. Hey there. Not really following this thread in any detail really but thought I'd give a wave assuming you are referring to me. What was the question?
Hi! It isn't possible to follow this thread in any detail.
15 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »I've just seen enough scientific data to satisfy my curiosity on this topic. The same way I would view cigarettes or certain drugs - I haven't read long internet threads about those things, but I've seen enough to overcome any desire I might have ever theoretically had to mess with those things.
It changed my mind. However, since I don't like the taste of alternative sweeteners I never bothered to research it. It was always easy to believe that anything that tastes that bad could not be good for you. Now I know better.
Anyway, I get to use one of my all-time favorite quotes again... "it is what you learn after you know it all that counts."
18 -
once i was out to eat with some people from my nursing class, and I ordered a Diet Coke. One girl heard me and said, "why are you drinking diet? you're already so skinny and besides, it's all chemicals that cause brain tumors and cancer and osteoporosis"
and I told her, "I actually already have/had osteopenia and a brain tumor, so I've got nothing to lose, really. I think I'll go ahead and order what I want." She didn't reply and left me alone lmao
lmao0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »...I haven't seen the aspartame thread and don't particularly care to see it - I personally have read enough about artificial sweeteners to have formed an opinion...
So you don't think that understanding the scientific facts about something is important to help form an informed opinion?
The OP in that thread is a molecular biologist. Not a shill from Big Aspartame or some random derp spouting personal opinions without evidence to back them up. Definitely worth a read for anybody with an open mind who's willing to realize that their 'opinions' might be based upon propaganda rather than scientific fact.
/wave. Hey there. Not really following this thread in any detail really but thought I'd give a wave assuming you are referring to me. What was the question?
Hi! It isn't possible to follow this thread in any detail.
Well just to be clear people deciding they want to avoid artificial sweeteners doesn't bug me, it is people who publicly decry artificial sweeteners as dangerous as if they have some sort of expertise/authority, enough to be judging others for using them or lecturing people on their dangers.
I might decide a particular bridge looks dangerous to me and decide not to cross it and that is on me and that is fine. But at the point where I decide I know enough about bridges (despite having no training whatsoever in civil engineering or bridge construction) to go lecturing people about how dangerous that bridge is is where I start being sort of a douche.34 -
I've never had this happen but when someone does something weird in the store I tend to not say things quick enough. I went to the store yesterday and one lady was blocking the item I was trying to get. I asked her politely to move and she looked at me with a sense of entitlement smh. Deep down I wanted to tell her to gtfoh! lmao3
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »...I haven't seen the aspartame thread and don't particularly care to see it - I personally have read enough about artificial sweeteners to have formed an opinion...
So you don't think that understanding the scientific facts about something is important to help form an informed opinion?
The OP in that thread is a molecular biologist. Not a shill from Big Aspartame or some random derp spouting personal opinions without evidence to back them up. Definitely worth a read for anybody with an open mind who's willing to realize that their 'opinions' might be based upon propaganda rather than scientific fact.
/wave. Hey there. Not really following this thread in any detail really but thought I'd give a wave assuming you are referring to me. What was the question?
Hi! It isn't possible to follow this thread in any detail.
Well just to be clear people deciding they want to avoid artificial sweeteners doesn't bug me, it is people who publicly decry artificial sweeteners as dangerous as if they have some sort of expertise/authority, enough to be judging others for using them or lecturing people on their dangers.
I might decide a particular bridge looks dangerous to me and decide not to cross it and that is on me and that is fine. But at the point where I decide I know enough about bridges (despite having no training whatsoever in civil engineering or bridge construction) to go lecturing people about how dangerous that bridge is is where I start being sort of a douche.
Or when you decide that bridges are as dangerous to public safety as a loaded weapon in the hands of a serial killer all while declaring that you're well researched on said opinion.14 -
Actually “processed meats” have been linked to cancer.Is it just me, or is everything linked to cancer nowadays?
Just saying, if people start lecturing me that bacon will give me cancer, I am gonna tell everyone I'm dying happy.
Edited to add.....
I use Splenda every day.
You’re right though. A life without bacon isn’t worth living. Lol I eat bacon like every week
When I was pregnant, I literally at 7 strips of thick cut bacon every single morning for 2-3 months. It was my snack while driving in to work. HAHAHA
And now, my toddler loves bacon.
Ya, when I as in jr. high I would eat bacon as my afternoon snack. Just bacon. My password for my email and various other things was also “bacon” lol
3 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »...I haven't seen the aspartame thread and don't particularly care to see it - I personally have read enough about artificial sweeteners to have formed an opinion...
So you don't think that understanding the scientific facts about something is important to help form an informed opinion?
The OP in that thread is a molecular biologist. Not a shill from Big Aspartame or some random derp spouting personal opinions without evidence to back them up. Definitely worth a read for anybody with an open mind who's willing to realize that their 'opinions' might be based upon propaganda rather than scientific fact.
Yeah let's keep our posters straight. I'm the shill for big pharma.
Although they probably don't know I'm posting here and I'm still waiting on that paycheck....
I don't shill very well.16 -
NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »...I haven't seen the aspartame thread and don't particularly care to see it - I personally have read enough about artificial sweeteners to have formed an opinion...
So you don't think that understanding the scientific facts about something is important to help form an informed opinion?
The OP in that thread is a molecular biologist. Not a shill from Big Aspartame or some random derp spouting personal opinions without evidence to back them up. Definitely worth a read for anybody with an open mind who's willing to realize that their 'opinions' might be based upon propaganda rather than scientific fact.
I've just seen enough scientific data to satisfy my curiosity on this topic. The same way I would view cigarettes or certain drugs - I haven't read long internet threads about those things, but I've seen enough to overcome any desire I might have ever theoretically had to mess with those things.
Its posts like this that have me currently in mfp jail. Sigh...oh to dream of a reply....4 -
Just use sugar, you need the calories, you've lost enough weight8
-
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »NicoleHaki wrote: »...I haven't seen the aspartame thread and don't particularly care to see it - I personally have read enough about artificial sweeteners to have formed an opinion...
So you don't think that understanding the scientific facts about something is important to help form an informed opinion?
The OP in that thread is a molecular biologist. Not a shill from Big Aspartame or some random derp spouting personal opinions without evidence to back them up. Definitely worth a read for anybody with an open mind who's willing to realize that their 'opinions' might be based upon propaganda rather than scientific fact.
I've just seen enough scientific data to satisfy my curiosity on this topic. The same way I would view cigarettes or certain drugs - I haven't read long internet threads about those things, but I've seen enough to overcome any desire I might have ever theoretically had to mess with those things.
Its posts like this that have me currently in mfp jail. Sigh...oh to dream of a reply....
I wish they still showed the bars on people's pics for that.... otherwise, how can I tell who the cool people are?! 6 -
My new outfit.18
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions