Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Replies
-
VintageFeline wrote: »This thread is just bursting with irony this evening. Almost worth the insomnia to see it in all its unfolding glory.
This one and a couple of others have kept me reading for a couple of hours. Now I am caught up, and better yet, have learned some things.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250285
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that diet soda has adverse effect on the cerebellum of adult female albino Wistar rats.
Before I look do you mind filling out these questions about the study?
Sample size per test group:
What were the control groups:
Method of dosing (free feed, oral gavage, i.v. etc):
Was the study blind? (ie were the results analyzed without knowing which group they came from?
What was the readout? (quantitative like LD50 or qualitative like interpretation of pathology in the form of in situ slides)
What statistical technique did they use to determine significance? (paired t-test?)
What was the p-value between the test group and control groups?
Journal published in?
Method of acceptance of submitted manuscripts to that journal (peer review vs pay to publish)
Journal impact factor
Thanks
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824455/
Here is the most detailed info on this study I found and it does have color photos of the brain damage. I found the below detail interesting in what if Phenylalanine is not even the real harmful chemical in diet drinks.
"Olney et al.8 reported that aspartic acid caused excessive stimulation of the excitatory glutamate receptors leading to their hypertrophy and eventually hyperplasia. As glutamate is a constituent of this soda, this may have been a reason for the changes observed in this study."
The 250% more regular soda being consumed by the rats than the diet soda may mean something.
Oh I was asking if you could fill out the relevant information. Just wanting to make sure that if I'm going to take 3 hours to read the study that the person I am talking with about it has also read and understood the study and it's general standing in the overall community and wasn't just taking 5 seconds to link to something.
I just provided those questions as a kind of outline of what relevant info you should keep an eye out for.
Or are you saying you don't want to take that time but you would like it if I took that time?
Thanks they are very good questions to determine the value of any medical research. I am not saying anyone without interest should read anything. My reading is geared to learning ways that may help reduce my chance of a premature death due to my way of thinking, eating and moving after my wake up call 3 years ago.
That is totally fine, and thank you very much for not taking my request as insult or a challenge when it wasn't meant that way (so many times people get defensive). You understand however my reluctance to put a lot of personal time into something to have a discussion if that isn't going to be reciprocated.
I initially did try to do that but quickly got jaded and burned by people who would just spam links to studies they hadn't read expecting me to respond to each and everyone of them, something I won't do unless I actually read the study. What that meant is someone would take 20 seconds to spam the first 5 studies linked as hits to a google search of "Aspartame dangers" and then expect me to spend 15 hours reading them. I would actually do that and get back to them only for them to just respond by spamming the next 5 in their 20 second google search.
Since that life lesson I really don't engage unless there is some show of good faith that the other person is willing to invest the time as well. Hope you understand and cheers.
I agree with you about the wasting time and I have even wasted time with peer reviewed articles because of inbreeding of ideas in a closed enviroment medically speaking. Holding a terminal degree in healthcare drives home how the impact of biases can be a real problem both in the labs and reading of the research by others. I find different ways of looking at cancer risks from Europe and Asia do help see past some of AMA type biases for example. Outside of the USA there seems more thoughts as to how the big picture focuses on how our thoughts, then way of eating then our way of moving impact disease and health problems in general. Thanks again.
8 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250285
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that diet soda has adverse effect on the cerebellum of adult female albino Wistar rats.
Before I look do you mind filling out these questions about the study?
Sample size per test group:
What were the control groups:
Method of dosing (free feed, oral gavage, i.v. etc):
Was the study blind? (ie were the results analyzed without knowing which group they came from?
What was the readout? (quantitative like LD50 or qualitative like interpretation of pathology in the form of in situ slides)
What statistical technique did they use to determine significance? (paired t-test?)
What was the p-value between the test group and control groups?
Journal published in?
Method of acceptance of submitted manuscripts to that journal (peer review vs pay to publish)
Journal impact factor
Thanks
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824455/
Here is the most detailed info on this study I found and it does have color photos of the brain damage. I found the below detail interesting in what if Phenylalanine is not even the real harmful chemical in diet drinks.
"Olney et al.8 reported that aspartic acid caused excessive stimulation of the excitatory glutamate receptors leading to their hypertrophy and eventually hyperplasia. As glutamate is a constituent of this soda, this may have been a reason for the changes observed in this study."
The 250% more regular soda being consumed by the rats than the diet soda may mean something.
Oh I was asking if you could fill out the relevant information. Just wanting to make sure that if I'm going to take 3 hours to read the study that the person I am talking with about it has also read and understood the study and it's general standing in the overall community and wasn't just taking 5 seconds to link to something.
I just provided those questions as a kind of outline of what relevant info you should keep an eye out for.
Or are you saying you don't want to take that time but you would like it if I took that time?
Thanks they are very good questions to determine the value of any medical research. I am not saying anyone without interest should read anything. My reading is geared to learning ways that may help reduce my chance of a premature death due to my way of thinking, eating and moving after my wake up call 3 years ago.
That is totally fine, and thank you very much for not taking my request as insult or a challenge when it wasn't meant that way (so many times people get defensive). You understand however my reluctance to put a lot of personal time into something to have a discussion if that isn't going to be reciprocated.
I initially did try to do that but quickly got jaded and burned by people who would just spam links to studies they hadn't read expecting me to respond to each and everyone of them, something I won't do unless I actually read the study. What that meant is someone would take 20 seconds to spam the first 5 studies linked as hits to a google search of "Aspartame dangers" and then expect me to spend 15 hours reading them. I would actually do that and get back to them only for them to just respond by spamming the next 5 in their 20 second google search.
Since that life lesson I really don't engage unless there is some show of good faith that the other person is willing to invest the time as well. Hope you understand and cheers.
I agree with you about the wasting time and I have even wasted time with peer reviewed articles because of inbreeding of ideas in a closed enviroment medically speaking. Holding a terminal degree in healthcare drives home how the impact of biases can be a real problem both in the labs and reading of the research by others. I find different ways of looking at cancer risks from Europe and Asia do help see past some of AMA type biases for example. Outside of the USA there seems more thoughts as to how the big picture focuses on how our thoughts, then way of eating then our way of moving impact disease and health problems in general. Thanks again.
You still haven't answered his original questions relating to the study you say supports your position in order to clarify if it is worth Aaron investing a substantial amount of time reading. If you yourself have already invested that time then you should be delighted to share some of the pertinent points you found relevant and worth looking into.7 -
A possibly devolved reference, considering it is a couple thousand years younger:
http://mark-twain.classic-literature.co.uk/what-is-man-and-other-essays-of-mark-twain/ebook-page-15.asp2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250285
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that diet soda has adverse effect on the cerebellum of adult female albino Wistar rats.
Before I look do you mind filling out these questions about the study?
Sample size per test group:
What were the control groups:
Method of dosing (free feed, oral gavage, i.v. etc):
Was the study blind? (ie were the results analyzed without knowing which group they came from?
What was the readout? (quantitative like LD50 or qualitative like interpretation of pathology in the form of in situ slides)
What statistical technique did they use to determine significance? (paired t-test?)
What was the p-value between the test group and control groups?
Journal published in?
Method of acceptance of submitted manuscripts to that journal (peer review vs pay to publish)
Journal impact factor
Thanks
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824455/
Here is the most detailed info on this study I found and it does have color photos of the brain damage. I found the below detail interesting in what if Phenylalanine is not even the real harmful chemical in diet drinks.
"Olney et al.8 reported that aspartic acid caused excessive stimulation of the excitatory glutamate receptors leading to their hypertrophy and eventually hyperplasia. As glutamate is a constituent of this soda, this may have been a reason for the changes observed in this study."
The 250% more regular soda being consumed by the rats than the diet soda may mean something.
Oh I was asking if you could fill out the relevant information. Just wanting to make sure that if I'm going to take 3 hours to read the study that the person I am talking with about it has also read and understood the study and it's general standing in the overall community and wasn't just taking 5 seconds to link to something.
I just provided those questions as a kind of outline of what relevant info you should keep an eye out for.
Or are you saying you don't want to take that time but you would like it if I took that time?
Thanks they are very good questions to determine the value of any medical research. I am not saying anyone without interest should read anything. My reading is geared to learning ways that may help reduce my chance of a premature death due to my way of thinking, eating and moving after my wake up call 3 years ago.
That is totally fine, and thank you very much for not taking my request as insult or a challenge when it wasn't meant that way (so many times people get defensive). You understand however my reluctance to put a lot of personal time into something to have a discussion if that isn't going to be reciprocated.
I initially did try to do that but quickly got jaded and burned by people who would just spam links to studies they hadn't read expecting me to respond to each and everyone of them, something I won't do unless I actually read the study. What that meant is someone would take 20 seconds to spam the first 5 studies linked as hits to a google search of "Aspartame dangers" and then expect me to spend 15 hours reading them. I would actually do that and get back to them only for them to just respond by spamming the next 5 in their 20 second google search.
Since that life lesson I really don't engage unless there is some show of good faith that the other person is willing to invest the time as well. Hope you understand and cheers.
I agree with you about the wasting time and I have even wasted time with peer reviewed articles because of inbreeding of ideas in a closed enviroment medically speaking. Holding a terminal degree in healthcare drives home how the impact of biases can be a real problem both in the labs and reading of the research by others. I find different ways of looking at cancer risks from Europe and Asia do help see past some of AMA type biases for example. Outside of the USA there seems more thoughts as to how the big picture focuses on how our thoughts, then way of eating then our way of moving impact disease and health problems in general. Thanks again.
You still haven't answered his original questions relating to the study you say supports your position in order to clarify if it is worth Aaron investing a substantial amount of time reading. If you yourself have already invested that time then you should be delighted to share some of the pertinent points you found relevant and worth looking into.VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250285
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that diet soda has adverse effect on the cerebellum of adult female albino Wistar rats.
Before I look do you mind filling out these questions about the study?
Sample size per test group:
What were the control groups:
Method of dosing (free feed, oral gavage, i.v. etc):
Was the study blind? (ie were the results analyzed without knowing which group they came from?
What was the readout? (quantitative like LD50 or qualitative like interpretation of pathology in the form of in situ slides)
What statistical technique did they use to determine significance? (paired t-test?)
What was the p-value between the test group and control groups?
Journal published in?
Method of acceptance of submitted manuscripts to that journal (peer review vs pay to publish)
Journal impact factor
Thanks
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824455/
Here is the most detailed info on this study I found and it does have color photos of the brain damage. I found the below detail interesting in what if Phenylalanine is not even the real harmful chemical in diet drinks.
"Olney et al.8 reported that aspartic acid caused excessive stimulation of the excitatory glutamate receptors leading to their hypertrophy and eventually hyperplasia. As glutamate is a constituent of this soda, this may have been a reason for the changes observed in this study."
The 250% more regular soda being consumed by the rats than the diet soda may mean something.
Oh I was asking if you could fill out the relevant information. Just wanting to make sure that if I'm going to take 3 hours to read the study that the person I am talking with about it has also read and understood the study and it's general standing in the overall community and wasn't just taking 5 seconds to link to something.
I just provided those questions as a kind of outline of what relevant info you should keep an eye out for.
Or are you saying you don't want to take that time but you would like it if I took that time?
Thanks they are very good questions to determine the value of any medical research. I am not saying anyone without interest should read anything. My reading is geared to learning ways that may help reduce my chance of a premature death due to my way of thinking, eating and moving after my wake up call 3 years ago.
That is totally fine, and thank you very much for not taking my request as insult or a challenge when it wasn't meant that way (so many times people get defensive). You understand however my reluctance to put a lot of personal time into something to have a discussion if that isn't going to be reciprocated.
I initially did try to do that but quickly got jaded and burned by people who would just spam links to studies they hadn't read expecting me to respond to each and everyone of them, something I won't do unless I actually read the study. What that meant is someone would take 20 seconds to spam the first 5 studies linked as hits to a google search of "Aspartame dangers" and then expect me to spend 15 hours reading them. I would actually do that and get back to them only for them to just respond by spamming the next 5 in their 20 second google search.
Since that life lesson I really don't engage unless there is some show of good faith that the other person is willing to invest the time as well. Hope you understand and cheers.
I agree with you about the wasting time and I have even wasted time with peer reviewed articles because of inbreeding of ideas in a closed enviroment medically speaking. Holding a terminal degree in healthcare drives home how the impact of biases can be a real problem both in the labs and reading of the research by others. I find different ways of looking at cancer risks from Europe and Asia do help see past some of AMA type biases for example. Outside of the USA there seems more thoughts as to how the big picture focuses on how our thoughts, then way of eating then our way of moving impact disease and health problems in general. Thanks again.
You still haven't answered his original questions relating to the study you say supports your position in order to clarify if it is worth Aaron investing a substantial amount of time reading. If you yourself have already invested that time then you should be delighted to share some of the pertinent points you found relevant and worth looking into.
I do not have a position to support but from the link I posted I really question that Phenylalanine consumption is a concern when it comes to premature death risks. I am not asking anyone to read anything but if one shares any interest in subjects that I am interested in I will try to discuss. I am trying to get out of changing the minds of others because it did not work out well my first 60 years so I do not plan do it my next 60 years.
7 -
A possibly devolved reference, considering it is a couple thousand years younger:
http://mark-twain.classic-literature.co.uk/what-is-man-and-other-essays-of-mark-twain/ebook-page-15.asp
That is awesome and applicable here. People post like we know the truth when the truth is never knowable. Since high school I have spent another 12 years of butt in chair/lab type of education (not counting any OJT. Now at the age of 66 most all of the facts I learned have now been proven incorrect or just no longer useful.
Proverbs has not let me down. The source of that ancient ageless wisdom boggles my mind and much of it is about diet too.7 -
alicebhsia wrote: »https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/24/aspartame-affects-brain-health.aspx random study just looked up - i am assuming mercola is a credible source. (not pushing stevia on anyone as i think it tastes even worse than aspartame) this page disagrees with you @Aaron_K123 "The amino acids in aspartame literally attack your cells, even crossing the blood-brain barrier to attack your brain cells, creating a toxic cellular overstimulation, called excitotoxicity"
That's not a study. It's an article full of false, unfounded claims. And no...Mercola is far from a credible source. He's a total quack.6 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »If instead you are willing to claim things that you personally do not understand or really know anything about as you yourself have stated, then what is the value of this discussion?
Reminds me of people who don't like margarine because it is one molecule away from plastic. They've heard/read it somewhere, haven't got the foggiest idea what it actually means (hey @Aaron_K123, care to explain that one) but go on rants if they see someone use margarine.
Quite often it's the same people.
Water is one molecule away from Rocket fuel.8 -
This thread has become very strange indeed.
Can somebody explian why a mystic physic who died in 1945 is being held up as a source of knowledge on the topic of aspartame ??????
Am totally lost as to that line of reasoning.
11 -
1
-
alicebhsia wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »What studies are you referring to?
try googling it. there are many. i'm not saying i won't occasionally have something with aspartame in it. as to my understanding it's only in high concentrations that it's harmful. even vitamins can be harmful in too high a concentration. but still, our brains are sensitive machines, why sell them out and our health along with it for the sake of convenience or what is easy? (to go along with whatever these money-making companies are pushing on us.) why aspartame isn't scary to me? because i take it in extreme moderation and avoid it whenever possible.
Google turns up all kinds of information about aspartame, some of it very inaccurate or misleading. Since you cited specific studies, I'm curious to know which ones convinced you. If I look up random studies, I have no idea if they are the ones you are referring to or not.
So which studies convinced you?
Edit: Never mind, I see you're citing Mercola. Please consider amping up your scientific literacy. It's of great value in helping you determine what is valid information and what is deceptive trash from quacks.6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I GaleHawkins wrote: »Lawyers seem to find Aspartame good for business.
nypost.com/2017/10/18/these-diet-sodas-are-actually-making-people-fat-suit/
"The companies’ diet drinks contain aspertame, a sugar substitute, which some recent studies have shown can cause cardiovascular disease and diabetes, as well as lead to weight gain, the suits claim."
"“Our case is focused on aspertame, but all artificial sweetners” behave the same in your body, said Derek Smith, whose eponymous law firm is lead counsel in all three soda cases."
Lawyers sue over all kinds of ridiculous stuff. If you avoided everything associated with lawsuits, you'd have a very constrained life.
I can agree with that. What I do know is lawyers are out to make big bucks most always. So they had evidence to take into the courtroom before it became a "news" story I am certain. But my question was what could it be?
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250285
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that diet soda has adverse effect on the cerebellum of adult female albino Wistar rats.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494042/
A bitter aftertaste: unintended effects of artificial sweeteners on the gut microbiome
"The new study by Suez and colleagues (2014) described the effects of one such dietary change — increasing use of non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) — on host glucose tolerance. The authors found that glucose intolerance, a marker of metabolic diseases such as diabetes mellitus, was increased in mice by regular consumption of the sweeteners saccharin, sucralose, or aspartame (Figure 1A). These changes accompanied altered intestinal bacterial communities, including several organisms that are associated with obesity, diabetes, and metabolic disease, and were suppressed by antibiotic treatment, suggesting a direct microbial role......."
https://consumerreports.org/soda/mounting-evidence-against-diet-sodas/
It sounds like a lot of the news article was based on this Consumer Reports story.
The court case may be interesting to hear or a total bust.
Assuming that every lawsuit is based on a foundation of truth and that we should alter our behavior accordingly is an absolutely ridiculous way to go through life.
Instead of assuming they're operating in good faith and that you should follow their lead, why not research their claims and then decide?5 -
Bump6
-
Almost ANYTHING is better than refined sugar.19
-
7
-
Aztec4Life wrote: »Almost ANYTHING is better than refined sugar.
Well that is just silly- no context, no dosage, just a blanket sweeping statement.
I agree big buckets of sugar - bad idea for anyone - but still better than, say, getting bitten by a death adder.
Or swallowing a cup of arsenic.
and in some situations, refined sugar is best thing - eg diabetic having a hypo.
And most people can have reasonable amount in sensible moderation without any issues.
and anyway, thread is about aspartame, not refined sugar.
9 -
8
-
I don't use apartame because it makes the inside of my mouth dry and itchy and gives me a migraine. The doctor said I wasn't allergic but to avoid it anyway.1
-
I don't use apartame because it makes the inside of my mouth dry and itchy and gives me a migraine. The doctor said I wasn't allergic but to avoid it anyway.
That's fine. Some people do have adverse effects to artificial sweeteners. But this thread is speaking to those who think it's bad for everyone.5 -
ANYTHING could be bad or toxic to ANYONE
0 -
I work in a research based university. People would be shocked how skewed and exaggerated research is achieved.
The amounts that test samples of those questionable said samples are fed, ingested, injected,etc at levels you and I would never take in. Do your aspartame or sucralose but beware if you are drinking a 12 pak of diet sodas a day or feeding yourself spoonfuls of artificial sweeteners by the bag. Carcinogenic possibly....at ridiculous levels...probable.
Most of this research is maketing/political movements to bring their own product within a "perceived healthy" standard.
Look out in the near future....plant based sweeteners could be next.
10 -
Aztec4Life wrote: »Almost ANYTHING is better than refined sugar.
It took 78 pages to go from "aspartame is usually fine" to "sugar is the devil." Nice.3 -
I work in a research based university. People would be shocked how skewed and exaggerated research is achieved.
The amounts that test samples of those questionable said samples are fed, ingested, injected,etc at levels you and I would never take in. Do your aspartame or sucralose but beware if you are drinking a 12 pak of diet sodas a day or feeding yourself spoonfuls of artificial sweeteners by the bag. Carcinogenic possibly....at ridiculous levels...probable.
Most of this research is maketing/political movements to bring their own product within a "perceived healthy" standard.
Look out in the near future....plant based sweeteners could be next.
Methodology and statistical testing selection can really stilt the results!0 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »Aztec4Life wrote: »Almost ANYTHING is better than refined sugar.
It took 78 pages to go from "aspartame is usually fine" to "sugar is the devil." Nice.
That's pretty slow for here, we are really slacking.
2 -
I work in a research based university. People would be shocked how skewed and exaggerated research is achieved.
The amounts that test samples of those questionable said samples are fed, ingested, injected,etc at levels you and I would never take in. Do your aspartame or sucralose but beware if you are drinking a 12 pak of diet sodas a day or feeding yourself spoonfuls of artificial sweeteners by the bag. Carcinogenic possibly....at ridiculous levels...probable.
Most of this research is maketing/political movements to bring their own product within a "perceived healthy" standard.
Look out in the near future....plant based sweeteners could be next.
Yeah to be honest I don't really agree with you here. You are making a lot if unsupported allegations here and coupling that to some sort of claim to authority from some sort of undefined association with a university.
Statements you make here range from so broad and vague that they would apply to literally anything to just plain false.
In what way is aspartame probably carcinogenic and from what are you claiming that 12 sodas a day crosses that line? Are all studies for any product "marketing" or is it just for aspartame? Can you give an example of a study that was nothing more than "marketing"? Can you give an example of a study that isn't "marketing"? If a study is "marketing" is it automatically invalid or can it's findings still be relevant?
I think you are trying to be pragmatic and helpful but this sort of vague reference to a possible threat and possible conspiracy or hiding of the truth is just supporting that culture of irrational fear I'm so against. Don't make those sorts of claims lightly or flippantly, they are major accusations and should be backed up with at least something.11 -
Never accused just spoke of research and how what is read should be with a grain of salt....yes I just pulled 12 bottles of diet soda out of my a**. Using that as an example not as gospel tried and true research! It can all be twisted to benefit someone....the bottom line I say$$$
If someone wants to find something out...they need to dig.
How do you know what is flippant accusation and where does experience draw its line.
Please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The internet is full of ridiculous accusation and bogus material ....believe it if you like....discard it if you like. It the right of the individual.
8 -
Never accused just spoke of research and how what is read should be with a grain of salt....yes I just pulled 12 bottles of diet soda out of my a**. Using that as an example not as gospel tried and true research! It can all be twisted to benefit someone....the bottom line I say$$$
If someone wants to find something out...they need to dig.
How do you know what is flippant accusation and where does experience draw its line.
Please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The internet is full of ridiculous accusation and bogus material ....believe it if you like....discard it if you like. It the right of the individual.
I will emphasize "individuals" here because everyone can do what they like with their own thinking, however, science and those who claim to represent the body of evidence do not have such freedoms. Ethical standards for truth mean that they must not overstate what can be supported by the facts. There are too many histrionics in the anti-sweetner camps and statements made that are not supported by evidence. This is not acceptable.
9 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Never accused just spoke of research and how what is read should be with a grain of salt....yes I just pulled 12 bottles of diet soda out of my a**. Using that as an example not as gospel tried and true research! It can all be twisted to benefit someone....the bottom line I say$$$
If someone wants to find something out...they need to dig.
How do you know what is flippant accusation and where does experience draw its line.
Please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The internet is full of ridiculous accusation and bogus material ....believe it if you like....discard it if you like. It the right of the individual.
I will emphasize "individuals" here because everyone can do what they like with their own thinking, however, science and those who claim to represent the body of evidence do not have such freedoms. Ethical standards for truth mean that they must not overstate what can be supported by the facts. There are too many histrionics in the anti-sweetner camps and statements made that are not supported by evidence. This is not acceptable.
I agree with what you state....and I believe we are in the same camp! I am very cynical in regards to research and my weekly diet root beer will have to be pryed from my cold dead hands.1 -
Never accused just spoke of research and how what is read should be with a grain of salt....yes I just pulled 12 bottles of diet soda out of my a**. Using that as an example not as gospel tried and true research! It can all be twisted to benefit someone....the bottom line I say$$$
If someone wants to find something out...they need to dig.
How do you know what is flippant accusation and where does experience draw its line.
Please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The internet is full of ridiculous accusation and bogus material ....believe it if you like....discard it if you like. It the right of the individual.
To recap, you're suggesting a research scientist who does this stuff for a living shouldn't get his information from the internet? Wow.5 -
Never accused just spoke of research and how what is read should be with a grain of salt....yes I just pulled 12 bottles of diet soda out of my a**. Using that as an example not as gospel tried and true research! It can all be twisted to benefit someone....the bottom line I say$$$
If someone wants to find something out...they need to dig.
How do you know what is flippant accusation and where does experience draw its line.
Please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The internet is full of ridiculous accusation and bogus material ....believe it if you like....discard it if you like. It the right of the individual.
So if your post was just a personal opinion why start the post by saying you work at a university involved in research? That implies that you have specific insider knowledge and examples pertaining to your claims of market-driven unethical research practices that you just sort of allude to without backing up.
If you are going to accuse researchers of behaving unethically and you start that post by stating you work at a university that does research it sort of implies that you have seen unethical practices at your workplace. Is that true?
Again don't just lob accusations like that with nothing to back it up at all.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.4K 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