Somebody lectured me about Splenda today
Options
Replies
-
Truvia is great. That's the only thing I use in my coffee anymore. It's better than the other stevia brands. Much more mild.0
-
YvetteK2015 wrote: »Truvia is great. That's the only thing I use in my coffee anymore. It's better than the other stevia brands. Much more mild.
Probably because the majority of the sweetener in Truvia isn't stevia...it is erithritol. Keep in mind ingredients are listed in order in terms of abundance in a product...just look at the ingredients on a Truvia pacakge....the vast majority of it is erithritol. So if you use 3.5 grams of Truvia (1 serving) very little of that is actually stevia...less than half a gram for sure and perhaps much less. If you actually used 3.5 grams of stevia that would most certainly be a harsh experience. Truvia is milder because it is very cut.11 -
Some brief acquaintance was going on about how aspartame causes cancer (it doesn't) and I just commented briefly about how I have been drinking diet soda for years and had no intention of giving it up. So he said, and I quote, "Well enjoy your diet cancer then". Wow just wow14
-
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.
It doesn't matter if you have strong feelings about any food in particular at all. Leave other peoples food choices alone entirely. Especially strangers in public who didn't ask you. Is this really hard for people?20 -
seekingdaintiness wrote: »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.
It doesn't matter if you have strong feelings about any food in particular at all. Leave other peoples food choices alone entirely. Especially strangers in public who didn't ask you. Is this really hard for people?
Well to be honest in her first paragraph she stated that she agreed it would be inappropriate to accost a stranger about it.6 -
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.
I am not aware of any study of aspartame in humans that showed any I'll effect at all correlational or not. That isn't for lack of studies either...there is no ethics violation testing something in humans that has been approved and been on the market for 30 years. Aspartame has been the most studied food product of all time with hundreds of human studies none of which showed anything yet the public keeps demandung... and funding through tax dollars..more and more studies.Millions of people invest aspartame daily...so why would you think that an ethics review board would reject human studies?21 -
You wonder if there would be this much hullabaloo if the term "artificial" had not stuck. I don't know if that was a major marketing blunder or what. It doesn't help that the new marketing ploy is to label everything they can with "all natural ingredients" which makes artificial stand out that much more.7
-
Regarding Splenda: Not only am I trying to watch my calorie intake, I am also a diabetic. I have no other choice but to use an artificial sweetener such as Splenda. I have not read any detailed research regarding artificial sweetener to support how bad it is. My highest A1C was 10.3, and between proper diet & exercise I have brought my weight down 47 lbs since January, and my A1C is down to 6.0. I am in the medical field, and the hospitals give Splenda to their diabetic patients.
This is me now age 63 in December.20 -
Ugh. I was in the ice cream aisle the other day making my selection. I was reaching for my go to which happens to be a light style ice cream. Some old lady walls up to me to tell me to read the labels cause sometimes the light ones have more sugar than regular. Ummmm. 1. Did I ask for a second opinion? 2. I've read the label on every freaking kroger brand ice cream and picked the one I did because I know it had the least sugar/fat. 3. What does a perfect stranger care what I buy?9
-
Also, people need to mind their own beeswax about artificial sweeteners. I did my a very long paper in college about them. I was expecting to find a slew of studies that showed they were carcinogenic. I found a total of 3 in a sea of a hundred scholarly peer reviewed studies that said it may be bad for you. They tested it on rats and all three studies were written by the same group. I legitimately had to change my thesis because i couldn't find enough (legitimate scientific) evidence that artificial sweeteners were bad for you in normal amounts.25
-
doittoitgirl wrote: »Also, people need to mind their own beeswax about artificial sweeteners. I did my a very long paper in college about them. I was expecting to find a slew of studies that showed they were carcinogenic. I found a total of 3 in a sea of a hundred scholarly peer reviewed studies that said it may be bad for you. They tested it on rats and all three studies were written by the same group. I legitimately had to change my thesis because i couldn't find enough (legitimate scientific) evidence that artificial sweeteners were bad for you in normal amounts.
There's plenty of legitimate scientific evidence showing that it's perfectly safe, though. 11 -
I saw earlier that the example of women who used artificial sweeteners in pregnancy having obese infants/toddlers 1-2 years later.
Did the study investigate why they were using artificial sweeteners? Because I used Splenda during pregnancy due to being diagnosed with gestational diabetes. Uncontrolled gestational diabetes is known to cause macrosomia (big babies) which is known to cause (increase risk of) obesity in toddlers later on.
Just more proof that correlation is not causation, and a much more plausible reason for the Splenda-obese toddlers correlation.24 -
I saw earlier that the example of women who used artificial sweeteners in pregnancy having obese infants/toddlers 1-2 years later.
Did the study investigate why they were using artificial sweeteners? Because I used Splenda during pregnancy due to being diagnosed with gestational diabetes. Uncontrolled gestational diabetes is known to cause macrosomia (big babies) which is known to cause (increase risk of) obesity in toddlers later on.
Just more proof that correlation is not causation, and a much more plausible reason for the Splenda-obese toddlers correlation.
Please, don't use logic!!! 7 -
I saw earlier that the example of women who used artificial sweeteners in pregnancy having obese infants/toddlers 1-2 years later.
Did the study investigate why they were using artificial sweeteners? Because I used Splenda during pregnancy due to being diagnosed with gestational diabetes. Uncontrolled gestational diabetes is known to cause macrosomia (big babies) which is known to cause (increase risk of) obesity in toddlers later on.
Just more proof that correlation is not causation, and a much more plausible reason for the Splenda-obese toddlers correlation.
That was one of the variables they identified as having accounted for or normalized against. However they lumped it with a cohort of other variables. As contrasted with Maternal obesity which they controlled for separately.2 -
doittoitgirl wrote: »Also, people need to mind their own beeswax about artificial sweeteners. I did my a very long paper in college about them. I was expecting to find a slew of studies that showed they were carcinogenic. I found a total of 3 in a sea of a hundred scholarly peer reviewed studies that said it may be bad for you. They tested it on rats and all three studies were written by the same group. I legitimately had to change my thesis because i couldn't find enough (legitimate scientific) evidence that artificial sweeteners were bad for you in normal amounts.
Wait, you changed your mind/story when you found out your expectations were incorrect?
You're doing it...........right.
14 -
doittoitgirl wrote: »Also, people need to mind their own beeswax about artificial sweeteners. I did my a very long paper in college about them. I was expecting to find a slew of studies that showed they were carcinogenic. I found a total of 3 in a sea of a hundred scholarly peer reviewed studies that said it may be bad for you. They tested it on rats and all three studies were written by the same group. I legitimately had to change my thesis because i couldn't find enough (legitimate scientific) evidence that artificial sweeteners were bad for you in normal amounts.
I assume you are referring to the Soffritti studies... they used Sprague-Dawley rats, dont know if you caught that aspect of it or not. Look up the natural incidence of cancer in Sprague-Dawley rats.12 -
I'm confused. Is sugar unhealthy or are artificial sweeteners unhealthy?1
-
-
nickssweetheart wrote: »
I thought both were fine as long as it fit my calories?0 -
nickssweetheart wrote: »
I thought both were fine as long as it fit my calories?
The number one leading cause of death worldwide today..Being born11
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
- 389 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
- 96.3K 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