Sugar - the bitter truth

Options
1…6791112…14

Replies

  • SixHats
    SixHats Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    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.
    Did you intend for that to apply to your own post as well, or was that just a coincidence?

    Doesn't make a difference to me. Pick which ever one makes you feel better about yourself.
    Nice comeback. I'm sure that made you feel better about yourself.

    I refer you to my last answer.
  • SixHats
    SixHats Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    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.
  • pcastagner
    pcastagner Posts: 1,606 Member
    Options
    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?
  • SixHats
    SixHats Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    Indeed.

    What did you add back in?
  • ajaxe432
    ajaxe432 Posts: 608 Member
    Options
    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.
    Very agreeable...sad indeed.
  • ajaxe432
    ajaxe432 Posts: 608 Member
    Options
    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.
    Dr. OZ.....oh man....really? lol. What about the old Dr. Oz when he was half way credible;)
  • lua_
    lua_ Posts: 258 Member
    Options

    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.
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    however can I add that Shelley did not have a fear of technology.
    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.
  • pcastagner
    pcastagner Posts: 1,606 Member
    Options
    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.
  • mrmagee3
    mrmagee3 Posts: 518 Member
    Options
    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
  • LolBroScience
    LolBroScience Posts: 4,537 Member
    Options
    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....
  • mrmagee3
    mrmagee3 Posts: 518 Member
    Options
    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.
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    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?
    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.

    Thanks for enlightening me with that totally relevant philosophizing.
    bill-and-ted-socrates.jpg
  • LolBroScience
    LolBroScience Posts: 4,537 Member
    Options
    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.
  • mrmagee3
    mrmagee3 Posts: 518 Member
    Options
    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.
  • CipherZero
    CipherZero Posts: 1,418 Member
    Options
    Aspartame is a chemical

    All of biology is about chemicals.
  • pcastagner
    pcastagner Posts: 1,606 Member
    Options
    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?
    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.

    Thanks for enlightening me with that totally relevant philosophizing.
    bill-and-ted-socrates.jpg

    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.
  • LolBroScience
    LolBroScience Posts: 4,537 Member
    Options
    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.
  • ajaxe432
    ajaxe432 Posts: 608 Member
    Options
    Aspartame is a chemical

    All of biology is about chemicals.
    Chemistry maybe?
    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!
  • ritchiedrama
    ritchiedrama Posts: 1,304 Member
    Options
    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?

Categories