Somebody lectured me about Splenda today

Options
1202123252629

Replies

  • 1snowlady
    1snowlady Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    I would say-"shhh, the cops are after me!" It just doesn't have to make sense.
  • happytree923
    happytree923 Posts: 463 Member
    Options
    heybales wrote: »

    Well, if it really did that then it would matter, because it would cause insulin to increase, fat release for burning would be turned off, and blood sugar would drop until body figured out it was getting low because no extra was really coming in, then insulin would drop again.

    But as several links in this discussion have shown, body doesn't do that. Sure some extra preparedness in stomach may be going, but the increased insulin just because of something sweet has not been shown in those studies.

    I never said I thought it does that. But, if I understand correctly, the reasoning behind this argument is that sweet taste=that response, then ANY sweet taste should trigger that and stevia should also be avoided. I'm referring to the lecturing woman in the original post avoiding splenda but not avoiding stevia, presumably because stevia comes from a plant.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    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.

    @doittoitgirl Did you happen to notice what rats they used in those Soffritti studies that claimed a link between cancer and aspartame?
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,964 Member
    Options
    mph323 wrote: »
    Jruzer wrote: »
    Relevant, especially with @mph323 's bubble analogy:
    9d4zbo9bawxj.jpg

    Clicking the AWESOME button!

    Wait -- you still have an AWESOME button?!! Is that a Premium feature?
  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    Options
    mph323 wrote: »
    I really like that reply. I have the same philosophy and do the same with tips. I have to think that someone who would feel that what you choose to tip makes him look bad may have some internal ambiguity over his own choices.

    I wish more people had that philosophy. From time to time I will get that truly honest and hardworking person that will not try and take advantage and sell me only what I absolutely need with no gimmicks. When this happens I call the company to speak to an owner or manager to brag on that person and make sure they realize he/she is the only reason they are getting my business. What is sad is that most of the time I do it they say they hardly ever get positive feedback just complaints.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    Options
    mph323 wrote: »
    Jruzer wrote: »
    Relevant, especially with @mph323 's bubble analogy:
    9d4zbo9bawxj.jpg

    Clicking the AWESOME button!

    Wait -- you still have an AWESOME button?!! Is that a Premium feature?

    It's the invisible one. It's right there when you close your eyes and visualize it.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    NicoleHaki wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    NicoleHaki wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    kace_kay wrote: »
    Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?

    I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.

    There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.

    I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.

    edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:

    But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.

    Please link the studies - the only studies that I have seen that show any evidence of these issues have been weak correlation studies that cannot show actual causal factors between the artificial sweeteners and the cancer/disease.

    I am referring to the correlation studies. Last year, one found that new moms who reported consuming artificial sweeteners like Equal and Splenda during their pregnancies were twice as likely to have children who were overweight or obese within a year. Yes, this is a correlation study but that's probably a necessity for ethical reasons. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2521471

    Again the type of research you're looking for would take years to conduct and it would also be pretty unethical. I hope no researchers out there are asking people to consume artificial sweeteners consistently for years and years to prove that it causes cancer and diabetes - that would be extraordinarily morally wrong.

    Knowing what we do know (there are links between artificial sweeteners and a variety of serious health problems),we can all make decisions about what's important to us and where we want to compromise. I know people who smoke and drink knowing that these aren't good health choices, and that's their decision to make. Personally, I don't see any compelling reason to consume artificial sweeteners knowing that at best, they aren't good for me, and at worst, they can cause serious health problems.

    Correlation is not causation.

    People who drink water die.

    Does that mean that drinking water will lead to death?

    Don't sugar-coat it. It is far, far, far worse than you state. Every single person who ever drinks water dies.

    My n=1 proves that to be false. I drink water and have never died. As we discovered earlier in this thread, there is no scientific evidence to prove that I will ever die.

    Sure there is. You are human and no human has lived longer than 122 years 164 days. Sure you might push that number a bit higher but every human dies on or before that relative time frame.

    And of course its waters fault!

    The historical record argues for a larger but still finite number
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    Options
    NicoleHaki wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    NicoleHaki wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    kace_kay wrote: »
    Everyone has an opinion, there's science to back up both sides of the fake sugar debate. Why do you people have to be so *kitten* to someone who disagrees with you?

    I don't know who flagged this or why, but the flag is inappropriate.

    There is no actual science backing up the premise that "fake sugar" is harmful. If you read the first several posts in the "Aspartame isn't scary" thread you will find numerous legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is not. There are no legitimate peer-reviewed studies that show it is in people who have no adverse reactions to the components.

    I'd rather this didn't turn into an "evil Splenda" thread, since the OP centers on inappropriate comments from strangers, and the circumstance of the specific comment is incidental to the conversation.

    edited for clarity and grammar :embarrassed:

    But it's actually very difficult to use scientific research to prove that something is bad for you - artificial sweeteners have been linked to diabetes and cancer, but scientists aren't rushing to perform this research on humans because that would be unethical and it would also take many years. The research that I have seen (aspartame linked to leukemia, people who drink diet soda significantly more likely to get diabetes than people who drink regular soda, etc.) is so compelling that I wouldn't want for me or anyone I know to be the guinea pig who takes that kind of risk! Not saying it's right to say something to a stranger (I would never do that), but I would compare it to walking up to a stranger and saying not to smoke cigarettes - it's pretty rude and not something I would say, but I can see how someone would want to speak up.

    Please link the studies - the only studies that I have seen that show any evidence of these issues have been weak correlation studies that cannot show actual causal factors between the artificial sweeteners and the cancer/disease.

    I am referring to the correlation studies. Last year, one found that new moms who reported consuming artificial sweeteners like Equal and Splenda during their pregnancies were twice as likely to have children who were overweight or obese within a year. Yes, this is a correlation study but that's probably a necessity for ethical reasons. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2521471

    Again the type of research you're looking for would take years to conduct and it would also be pretty unethical. I hope no researchers out there are asking people to consume artificial sweeteners consistently for years and years to prove that it causes cancer and diabetes - that would be extraordinarily morally wrong.

    Knowing what we do know (there are links between artificial sweeteners and a variety of serious health problems),we can all make decisions about what's important to us and where we want to compromise. I know people who smoke and drink knowing that these aren't good health choices, and that's their decision to make. Personally, I don't see any compelling reason to consume artificial sweeteners knowing that at best, they aren't good for me, and at worst, they can cause serious health problems.

    Correlation is not causation.

    People who drink water die.

    Does that mean that drinking water will lead to death?

    Don't sugar-coat it. It is far, far, far worse than you state. Every single person who ever drinks water dies.

    My n=1 proves that to be false. I drink water and have never died. As we discovered earlier in this thread, there is no scientific evidence to prove that I will ever die.

    Sure there is. You are human and no human has lived longer than 122 years 164 days. Sure you might push that number a bit higher but every human dies on or before that relative time frame.

    And of course its waters fault!

    Ah, but how do you know that's an absoliute? Have you scientifically measured the age of everyone currently alive to verify there isn't that one person living deep in the unexplored jungle who has never died? (j/k - reference to a weird anti-science argument in the debate section a while ago.)