Sugar - the bitter truth
Replies
-
Sadly, many people don't seem to understand that Frankenstein is a fictional story, and/or that one author's irrational fear of technology does not make technology evil.Good morning!
Re my above comment about Stevia tasting bitter. I tried it mixed in a hot drink a while back - I think it was hot tea. It tasted bitter. So why if it supposed to be a natural sugar why does it have that nasty bitter chemical taste? Compared to real sugar, it has that fake chemical taste and that is why I question if it is so good.(compared to the sweet taste of real sugar)
What I am saying is that it "might" be ok for you to eat, but my tastebuds are detecting a fake chemically taste.
I thought about this just now, and I could taste that fake sweetener in diet Coke. Not sure but they might use Equal. I also used a few Equal packets on cold food and I detected that fake chemical taste. So compared to sugar, I dont think a bit of real sugar will kill you, unless you are diabetic or something, however, why would i want to put some nasty chemical tasting fake food in my mouth? blech!
I did try some rather bitter tasting greens - arugula for one, and yes it does taste bitter, but that is a raw vegetable, so any bitterness is from the thing that makes it green - celery is bitter the darker green it is. (chorophyll).
I must have sensitive taste buds as I can tell when food has things in it, like when they put whiskey in bbq sauce, the waitress said you cant taste it, but blech, i could.
so for me, I would ratehr eat natural foods, and not some fake chemical ingredient which taste is terrible, I'd rather not eat any of it. why bother? why make your food full of fake chemical stuff when you can have sweet tasting other food choices?
thats just my opinion of course. Telling me to eat that nasty stuff and saying you enjoy it is like telling me to get a kiss from a cold dead stone statue!
by the way have you read about that Frankenstein food - they have created a hamburger in a petri dish. Now, thats appetizing haha NOT! Guess who wont be standing in line for a taste!
Your logic confuses me.
Nobody is telling you to eat things that you don't enjoy, just that simply because you don't enjoy them doesn't mean that they are "bad" or unhealthy. Figuring that out is what peer reviewed studies are for.
Humans are amazing animals. Collectively we've come up with so many innovations through the years. Some have been good, some bad, but to say that something is harmful simply because it's new (artificial sweeteners, hamburger in a petri dish) or manmade doesn't make a lot of sense.0 -
Nice comeback. I'm sure that made you feel better about yourself.
Did you intend for that to apply to your own post as well, or was that just a coincidence?I have been avoiding sugars and carbs for a while now and I have to say I have never felt better. So, personally, I couldn't give a **** who is right. Low carb works for me. And, in the end, that's all that counts as far as I'm concerned.
I can't help but notice that people seem more keen to prove themselves right than to help other members on these boards. Sad, really.
Doesn't make a difference to me. Pick which ever one makes you feel better about yourself.0 -
Sadly, many people don't seem to understand that Frankenstein is a fictional story, and/or that one author's irrational fear of technology does not make technology evil.Good morning!
Re my above comment about Stevia tasting bitter. I tried it mixed in a hot drink a while back - I think it was hot tea. It tasted bitter. So why if it supposed to be a natural sugar why does it have that nasty bitter chemical taste? Compared to real sugar, it has that fake chemical taste and that is why I question if it is so good.(compared to the sweet taste of real sugar)
What I am saying is that it "might" be ok for you to eat, but my tastebuds are detecting a fake chemically taste.
I thought about this just now, and I could taste that fake sweetener in diet Coke. Not sure but they might use Equal. I also used a few Equal packets on cold food and I detected that fake chemical taste. So compared to sugar, I dont think a bit of real sugar will kill you, unless you are diabetic or something, however, why would i want to put some nasty chemical tasting fake food in my mouth? blech!
I did try some rather bitter tasting greens - arugula for one, and yes it does taste bitter, but that is a raw vegetable, so any bitterness is from the thing that makes it green - celery is bitter the darker green it is. (chorophyll).
I must have sensitive taste buds as I can tell when food has things in it, like when they put whiskey in bbq sauce, the waitress said you cant taste it, but blech, i could.
so for me, I would ratehr eat natural foods, and not some fake chemical ingredient which taste is terrible, I'd rather not eat any of it. why bother? why make your food full of fake chemical stuff when you can have sweet tasting other food choices?
thats just my opinion of course. Telling me to eat that nasty stuff and saying you enjoy it is like telling me to get a kiss from a cold dead stone statue!
by the way have you read about that Frankenstein food - they have created a hamburger in a petri dish. Now, thats appetizing haha NOT! Guess who wont be standing in line for a taste!
Your logic confuses me.
Nobody is telling you to eat things that you don't enjoy, just that simply because you don't enjoy them doesn't mean that they are "bad" or unhealthy. Figuring that out is what peer reviewed studies are for.
Humans are amazing animals. Collectively we've come up with so many innovations through the years. Some have been good, some bad, but to say that something is harmful simply because it's new (artificial sweeteners, hamburger in a petri dish) or manmade doesn't make a lot of sense.
Hmmm... Novels can me more true than reality sometimes.
But I digress...0 -
LOLustig
^ This.
I'm sorry, but there just comes a time when you have to tune out the Chicken Littles of the world. He's on my BSC list with Dr. Oz and Mercola.0 -
Say what?Hmmm... Novels can me more true than reality sometimes.
0 -
Say what?Hmmm... Novels can me more true than reality sometimes.
Wow I have to explain this?
In reality, things don't always fit "the rules". For instance quantum physics and "regular" physics seem to contradict each other.
In a work of fiction, the world presented is often much more consistent and "true".
I remember hearing this concept on day one of a beginner lit class in school. Sort of makes your gif a little bit anti-intellectual.0 -
Did they teach the concept that throwing in a second logical fallacy doesn't undo the first one?
Say what?Hmmm... Novels can me more true than reality sometimes.
Wow I have to explain this?
In reality, things don't always fit "the rules". For instance quantum physics and "regular" physics seem to contradict each other.
In a work of fiction, the world presented is often much more consistent and "true".
I remember hearing this concept on day one of a beginner lit class in school. Sort of makes your gif a little bit anti-intellectual.0 -
Wrong + ad hominem + appeal to authority = still wrong.0
-
Appeal to authority is when you depend on the authority itself rather than making the point. You a free to argue with Hemingway but I think he put it well
"“From things that have happened and from things as they exist and from all things that you know and all those you cannot know, you make something through your invention that is not a representation but a whole new thing truer than anything true and alive, and you make it alive, and if you make it well enough, you give it immortality.”
- in an interview, 1958 (The Paris Review Interview Vol. 1)
Further, it's clear you miss the point of Art completely when you confuse it with logic 101.
Let me then say that while you are obviously oh so clever and intelligent, in this instance you seem to perhaps have more fight than sense, which is troglodytic. Why you couldn't just let the comment go about fiction being sometimes truer than reality, I can't say. It's repeated so often and so NOT original to me, nor is it a point to debate really unless you are interested in talking of literary theory rather than the topic at hand. I made that comment in an offhand way.
Better?0 -
Ooh this guy does a pretty good job explaining this rather-well-discussed-since-the-renaissance idea. From
http://philipnewey.blogspot.jp/2012/12/fiction-is-truer-than-fact.html
Again, this is not appeal to authority, unless you only count my use of authority to get your attention (which is in fact a valid probabilistic argument that the position is worthy of consideration). The substance of this, as in the Hemingway quote, is not based on who spoke, but on what has been said.“Things need not have happened to be true. Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 3: Dream Country
I wish Neil Gaiman had written “forgotten” rather than “forgot”; but the point is well taken. Indeed, I would claim that tales are truer than fact, at least potentially. I make this claim, because life in general is very messy. As a research biologist, one of the things I would attempt to do is design an experiment that removes some of the messiness and noise from the world. Conditions are created in which it is possible to focus, preferably, on the results of changing a single variable. Of course, such a perfect system is not attainable, and there always remains some unwanted variation due to other, uncontrolled factors. Fiction writing is something like this. In fiction, we concentrate on one or a few themes and explore them in detail, excluding extraneous material. One of the simplest and clearest examples of this is the form of the parable, as seen in the gospels. Here a simple story is told that usually highlights a single, important point. This reveals a “truth” that could otherwise be obscured by the noise in the real world. I put “truth” in inverted commas, because I find myself somewhat on the side of Pontius Pilate here: “What is truth?” Truth, I believe, is time, place and context dependent. A parable never contains the whole truth and nothing but the truth; but it is a partial truth that might otherwise be overlooked in the clutter of the real world. A parable is, at the same time, untruth, because it ignores other important factors or pieces of information.
The same is true of more complex forms of fiction. They are abstractions from the real world, and are, therefore, able to reveal truths that might otherwise be overlooked. Of course, they are also untruths, as implied by the very word “fiction” itself.
Here is a theme that recurs frequently in my thinking, and probably, therefore, in my writing here. It is the idea of “the coincidence of opposites”. This is a concept that goes back to early Greek philosophy, but also gained currency in the Late Middle Ages, and is also evident in the psychology of Carl Jung. It is the idea that something can be simultaneously its own opposite. The road up, is also the road down. A story can be true and untrue at the same time; and, in being so, is somehow more “true” than it would otherwise be. This reflects the complexity of whatever this thing is in which we live, this “universe”, this “world”; and, even more so, this thing that we are: human beings.
Of course, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a story is just a story. (And/or not.)
I await your next brilliant use of snarky gif. I will thank you though, because the Neil Gaiman quote was not known to me. Loves me some sandman!0 -
Nice comeback. I'm sure that made you feel better about yourself.
Did you intend for that to apply to your own post as well, or was that just a coincidence?I have been avoiding sugars and carbs for a while now and I have to say I have never felt better. So, personally, I couldn't give a **** who is right. Low carb works for me. And, in the end, that's all that counts as far as I'm concerned.
I can't help but notice that people seem more keen to prove themselves right than to help other members on these boards. Sad, really.
Doesn't make a difference to me. Pick which ever one makes you feel better about yourself.
I refer you to my last answer.0 -
I'm not sure if this is even on topic now - I can't be bothered to wade through the all the self-importance - but since I lower my consumption of carbs and sugar I have , obviously, had to consume more fat. My protein levels have stayed pretty much the same. I have found that I have needed to eat less often due to feeling satiated for longer after eating. I have no doubt this has led to a lowering of my overall calorie intake and I have lost weight.
However, the changes in my diet have brought about some interesting side effects. The first, and perhaps most important, being a much more stable mood. I have suffered depression in the past and have found that since the changes in diet I have become much more able to cope with the depression when it raises it head. Which is nice.
Secondly, the fact I am able to go hours without eating while maintaining a steady energy level comes in very handy in my job where I rarely get a chance to stop and eat.
Thirdly, I have found my sleep much improved. I work a rolling shift pattern where I have three different shifts in the same six day period. I have noticed a remarkable improvement in my ability to cope with this. Which is also nice.
While I am only a N=1 I am interested in anyone else has a similar experience.0 -
I'm not sure if this is even on topic now - I can't be bothered to wade through the all the self-importance - but since I lower my consumption of carbs and sugar I have , obviously, had to consume more fat. My protein levels have stayed pretty much the same. I have found that I have needed to eat less often due to feeling satiated for longer after eating. I have no doubt this has led to a lowering of my overall calorie intake and I have lost weight.
However, the changes in my diet have brought about some interesting side effects. The first, and perhaps most important, being a much more stable mood. I have suffered depression in the past and have found that since the changes in diet I have become much more able to cope with the depression when it raises it head. Which is nice.
Secondly, the fact I am able to go hours without eating while maintaining a steady energy level comes in very handy in my job where I rarely get a chance to stop and eat.
Thirdly, I have found my sleep much improved. I work a rolling shift pattern where I have three different shifts in the same six day period. I have noticed a remarkable improvement in my ability to cope with this. Which is also nice.
While I am only a N=1 I am interested in anyone else has a similar experience.
I actually had similar results when I cut sugar and all starches from my diet except brown rice.
However, and very I interestingly, when I put them back in I did not revert! Cool, eh?0 -
Indeed.
What did you add back in?0 -
Very agreeable...sad indeed.I have been avoiding sugars and carbs for a while now and I have to say I have never felt better. So, personally, I couldn't give a **** who is right. Low carb works for me. And, in the end, that's all that counts as far as I'm concerned.
I can't help but notice that people seem more keen to prove themselves right than to help other members on these boards. Sad, really.0 -
Dr. OZ.....oh man....really? lol. What about the old Dr. Oz when he was half way credible;)LOLustig
^ This.
I'm sorry, but there just comes a time when you have to tune out the Chicken Littles of the world. He's on my BSC list with Dr. Oz and Mercola.0 -
Sadly, many people don't seem to understand that Frankenstein is a fictional story, and/or that one author's irrational fear of technology does not make technology evil.
Hmmm... Novels can me more true than reality sometimes.
But I digress...
Not adding any input to this thread, however can I add that Shelley did not have a fear of technology. Frankenstein is a didactic novel about the perils of man's obsession with knowledge and power, and how even though science could create something as fantastic as the monster, Frankenstein's hubris as a human being made him too ignorant to live with such a development. Science was developing a lot in Shelley's time, and her husband was one of the most radical minds, too. Whether Shelley was siding with the Scientific rationalism of the Enlightenment period, or the anti-science/logic agenda of the Romantic period, can be debated, but I doubt Shelley was at all afraid of technology. Afraid of what man could do with it, perhaps.0 -
Cool, I had wondered if that was the case, because that would make it rather humorous that the author's story got out of control and was being used for a purpose that wasn't intended or foreseen.however can I add that Shelley did not have a fear of technology.0 -
Indeed.
What did you add back in?
Bread, pasta, ice cream, white rice.
Although I try to eat my starchy carbs at night. Seems to help me sleep.0 -
That is why diet soda is very bad because of the aspartame which takes a huge bad toll on the body.
Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.
I take in plenty of the stuff, but there are plenty of studies linking aspartame to negative side effects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7936222
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2708042
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html0 -
That is why diet soda is very bad because of the aspartame which takes a huge bad toll on the body.
Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.
I take in plenty of the stuff, but there are plenty of studies linking aspartame to negative side effects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7936222
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2708042
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935 - Good thing I'm not Bipolar and i don't suffer from depression, nor does the majority of the population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7936222 - People with "Self-Identified" issues, and again only "damaging" to certain populations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2708042 - Correlation does not equal causation.... cited directly as the last sentence - "We conclude that aspartame may be an important dietary trigger of headache in some people." Also, it's not even a study.... it's a survey.
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html - An abstract citing the independent studies indentified issues, but nothing that talks about the issues...Furthermore, if you click on the link to the non-independent study, many of them are not even conducted on humans....0 -
That is why diet soda is very bad because of the aspartame which takes a huge bad toll on the body.
Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.
I take in plenty of the stuff, but there are plenty of studies linking aspartame to negative side effects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7936222
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2708042
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935 - Good thing I'm not Bipolar and i don't suffer from depression, nor does the majority of the population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7936222 - People with "Self-Identified" issues, and again only "damaging" to certain populations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2708042 - Correlation does not equal causation.... cited directly as the last sentence - "We conclude that aspartame may be an important dietary trigger of headache in some people." Also, it's not even a study.... it's a survey.
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html - An abstract citing the independent studies indentified issues, but nothing that talks about the issues...Furthermore, if you click on the link to the non-independent study, many of them are not even conducted on humans....
These are all legitimate criticisms of the research. That doesn't make the original statement, "[j]ust so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans..." correct.
It's perfectly acceptable to pick a group of research that you find more credible, and go with that. It's perfectly acceptable to assume some risk in what you take in, because you're comfortable at that risk level (or you believe that there is no risk at all). You can do both of these things without making statements like the one above, which is provably incorrect.0 -
Certainly. I used to be a troglodyte who blindly adhered to the silly idea that a new technology should be evaluated on its merits and potential utilities to humankind. But then I read a quote from Hemingway about art and now I realize that fearing a new food solely because it is a product of technology is the only reasonable way to live.Appeal to authority is when you depend on the authority itself rather than making the point. You a free to argue with Hemingway but I think he put it well
"“From things that have happened and from things as they exist and from all things that you know and all those you cannot know, you make something through your invention that is not a representation but a whole new thing truer than anything true and alive, and you make it alive, and if you make it well enough, you give it immortality.”
- in an interview, 1958 (The Paris Review Interview Vol. 1)
Further, it's clear you miss the point of Art completely when you confuse it with logic 101.
Let me then say that while you are obviously oh so clever and intelligent, in this instance you seem to perhaps have more fight than sense, which is troglodytic. Why you couldn't just let the comment go about fiction being sometimes truer than reality, I can't say. It's repeated so often and so NOT original to me, nor is it a point to debate really unless you are interested in talking of literary theory rather than the topic at hand. I made that comment in an offhand way.
Better?
Thanks for enlightening me with that totally relevant philosophizing.
0 -
That is why diet soda is very bad because of the aspartame which takes a huge bad toll on the body.
Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.
I take in plenty of the stuff, but there are plenty of studies linking aspartame to negative side effects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7936222
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2708042
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935 - Good thing I'm not Bipolar and i don't suffer from depression, nor does the majority of the population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7936222 - People with "Self-Identified" issues, and again only "damaging" to certain populations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2708042 - Correlation does not equal causation.... cited directly as the last sentence - "We conclude that aspartame may be an important dietary trigger of headache in some people." Also, it's not even a study.... it's a survey.
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html - An abstract citing the independent studies indentified issues, but nothing that talks about the issues...Furthermore, if you click on the link to the non-independent study, many of them are not even conducted on humans....
These are all legitimate criticisms of the research. That doesn't make the original statement, "[j]ust so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans..." correct.
It's perfectly acceptable to pick a group of research that you find more credible, and go with that. It's perfectly acceptable to assume some risk in what you take in, because you're comfortable at that risk level (or you believe that there is no risk at all). You can do both of these things without making statements like the one above, which is provably incorrect.
It doesn't make it incorrect either. However, it does demonstrate that there isn't enough research to prove it harmful YET.0 -
That is why diet soda is very bad because of the aspartame which takes a huge bad toll on the body.
Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.
I take in plenty of the stuff, but there are plenty of studies linking aspartame to negative side effects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7936222
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2708042
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935 - Good thing I'm not Bipolar and i don't suffer from depression, nor does the majority of the population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7936222 - People with "Self-Identified" issues, and again only "damaging" to certain populations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2708042 - Correlation does not equal causation.... cited directly as the last sentence - "We conclude that aspartame may be an important dietary trigger of headache in some people." Also, it's not even a study.... it's a survey.
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html - An abstract citing the independent studies indentified issues, but nothing that talks about the issues...Furthermore, if you click on the link to the non-independent study, many of them are not even conducted on humans....
These are all legitimate criticisms of the research. That doesn't make the original statement, "[j]ust so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans..." correct.
It's perfectly acceptable to pick a group of research that you find more credible, and go with that. It's perfectly acceptable to assume some risk in what you take in, because you're comfortable at that risk level (or you believe that there is no risk at all). You can do both of these things without making statements like the one above, which is provably incorrect.
It doesn't make it incorrect either. However, it does demonstrate that there isn't enough research to prove it harmful YET.
Which is completely not what he said. Again, for the sake of posterity:
"there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans..."
There is plenty of credible evidence that does so. That statement is completely, 100% incorrect. Whether or not the evidence is right is a completely separate argument that the poster didn't address.0 -
Aspartame is a chemical
All of biology is about chemicals.0 -
Certainly. I used to be a troglodyte who blindly adhered to the silly idea that a new technology should be evaluated on its merits and potential utilities to humankind. But then I read a quote from Hemingway about art and now I realize that fearing a new food solely because it is a product of technology is the only reasonable way to live.Appeal to authority is when you depend on the authority itself rather than making the point. You a free to argue with Hemingway but I think he put it well
"“From things that have happened and from things as they exist and from all things that you know and all those you cannot know, you make something through your invention that is not a representation but a whole new thing truer than anything true and alive, and you make it alive, and if you make it well enough, you give it immortality.”
- in an interview, 1958 (The Paris Review Interview Vol. 1)
Further, it's clear you miss the point of Art completely when you confuse it with logic 101.
Let me then say that while you are obviously oh so clever and intelligent, in this instance you seem to perhaps have more fight than sense, which is troglodytic. Why you couldn't just let the comment go about fiction being sometimes truer than reality, I can't say. It's repeated so often and so NOT original to me, nor is it a point to debate really unless you are interested in talking of literary theory rather than the topic at hand. I made that comment in an offhand way.
Better?
Thanks for enlightening me with that totally relevant philosophizing.
I did say " I digress", and you didn't need to press it.
You also seem to have me confused with one of the people afraid of aspartame. I haven't taken a position on the issue, other than to tell someone who doesn't like the flavor to stick with sugar.
But like I said, mo fight than sense. Since you missed the point of Frankenstein it's no surprise some other things went over your head.0 -
That is why diet soda is very bad because of the aspartame which takes a huge bad toll on the body.
Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.
I take in plenty of the stuff, but there are plenty of studies linking aspartame to negative side effects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7936222
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2708042
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935 - Good thing I'm not Bipolar and i don't suffer from depression, nor does the majority of the population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7936222 - People with "Self-Identified" issues, and again only "damaging" to certain populations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2708042 - Correlation does not equal causation.... cited directly as the last sentence - "We conclude that aspartame may be an important dietary trigger of headache in some people." Also, it's not even a study.... it's a survey.
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html - An abstract citing the independent studies indentified issues, but nothing that talks about the issues...Furthermore, if you click on the link to the non-independent study, many of them are not even conducted on humans....
These are all legitimate criticisms of the research. That doesn't make the original statement, "[j]ust so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans..." correct.
It's perfectly acceptable to pick a group of research that you find more credible, and go with that. It's perfectly acceptable to assume some risk in what you take in, because you're comfortable at that risk level (or you believe that there is no risk at all). You can do both of these things without making statements like the one above, which is provably incorrect.
It doesn't make it incorrect either. However, it does demonstrate that there isn't enough research to prove it harmful YET.
Which is completely not what he said. Again, for the sake of posterity:
"there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans..."
There is plenty of credible evidence that does so. That statement is completely, 100% incorrect. Whether or not the evidence is right is a completely separate argument that the poster didn't address.
I dont consider flair up of headaches harmful.0 -
Chemistry maybe?Aspartame is a chemical
All of biology is about chemicals.
Biology is the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior.
Not knockin!0 -
That is why diet soda is very bad because of the aspartame which takes a huge bad toll on the body.
Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.
I take in plenty of the stuff, but there are plenty of studies linking aspartame to negative side effects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7936222
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2708042
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935 - Good thing I'm not Bipolar and i don't suffer from depression, nor does the majority of the population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7936222 - People with "Self-Identified" issues, and again only "damaging" to certain populations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2708042 - Correlation does not equal causation.... cited directly as the last sentence - "We conclude that aspartame may be an important dietary trigger of headache in some people." Also, it's not even a study.... it's a survey.
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html - An abstract citing the independent studies indentified issues, but nothing that talks about the issues...Furthermore, if you click on the link to the non-independent study, many of them are not even conducted on humans....
These are all legitimate criticisms of the research. That doesn't make the original statement, "[j]ust so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans..." correct.
It's perfectly acceptable to pick a group of research that you find more credible, and go with that. It's perfectly acceptable to assume some risk in what you take in, because you're comfortable at that risk level (or you believe that there is no risk at all). You can do both of these things without making statements like the one above, which is provably incorrect.
It doesn't make it incorrect either. However, it does demonstrate that there isn't enough research to prove it harmful YET.
Which is completely not what he said. Again, for the sake of posterity:
"there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans..."
There is plenty of credible evidence that does so. That statement is completely, 100% incorrect. Whether or not the evidence is right is a completely separate argument that the poster didn't address.
You enjoy being wrong, don't you?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions