Where's the evidence re: aspartame, msg, carbs, gmo etc?
Options
Replies
-
simply post a few links to the human studies that show it is bad for you.
It's almost impossible to have human studies for dietary issues that are conclusive because you can't restrict a human diet for a long enough time.
It's fine to restrict a mouses diet to pure sugar water for 30-60 days and compare it to pure HFCS diet but you'll never be able to do studies like that on humans.
Long term diet studies tend to rely on food logs and can only point to a link between diet and long term health issues.0 -
I'm surprised nobody has commented on this human study that I posted. Did you read it?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22681873
Eviscerated:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-10-14.pdfIn addition, there are several questionable points regarding the study methods as follows;
1. According to their previous study, subjects who met exclusion criteria were excluded from
the 349 subjects resulted in 315 participants [16]. Although the exclusion criteria are the
same for both studies, participants were 349 in this study. Participants may be the same
because the median MSG intake and interquartile range are the same for both studies,
thus, there is a discrepancy about the number of participants.
2. They provided 250 g MSG in a box and measured weight of returned box to assess MSG
consumption under the assumption that MSG intake measured during 10 days reflect past
MSG intake behavior. This method seems to be similar to the weighted food component
measurement which is often used for food consumption studies and thought to be more
accurate than other methods such as 24 h food recall or food frequency questionnaire.
However, in the usual weighted food component measurement, participants use their own
ingredient whereas these participants used free MSG which was given by the investigator
in this study. This circumstance is quite different from the usual evaluation for
participants, and possibly affected the results. If free MSG is provided, it is very likely
that individuals use more MSG than usual because it is free. Thus, this method could not
be considered to be in the same category as the usual weighted food component
measurement and validation information should be provided.
3. In rural areas of Thailand, multi generations are often living together in the family home.
There may be a number of children in each such family home, but the study excluded
children under 10 years regardless of the number of children in the calculation, and this
possibly affected the MSG consumption data, although the statistical analysis was
adjusted for age.
4. None of the median and percentage values of the five criteria of ATP III were individually
associated with MSG intake cross-sectionally. Only the percentage of the metabolic
syndrome (defined as three or more of the five criteria are met) is associated with MSG
intake. This seems to be an oversight. More detailed data should be provided. In addition,
the observed associations are very weak with the very small odds ratios for overweight
and metabolic syndrome (1.16 and 1.14 respectively) although statistically significant.
5. They chose MSG users only so there is no comparison of the non-MSG users and MSG
users.
Eviscerated:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-10-14.pdf
These are the people that ran the above study. Do you really trust them? I think it is a conflict of interest for them to even conduct or fund a study on MSG don't you?
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/WhoRuns.html0 -
oh man im late
*popcorn* - hopefully I made enough0 -
They do it because they are jerks. They know EXACTLY what they are doing when they brag about that. They are rubbing it in the faces of those who struggle to lose. They know that the majority of people here are hurt, are suffering, are overweight, or are obese, uneducated on health and nutrition, are sick, are depressed about their current condition and are wanting to change. Wanting to learn. They make sure YOU KNOW, THEY CAN and YOU CAN'T so what is wrong with YOU and how cool are they? It is very immature and very rude. It's as if they are in junior high. Like I said, they know what they are doing. Why do they think we care? What is the purpose of getting on MFP and saying, "look at my six pack and I eat ice cream every day." It's like me sitting outside of an AA meeting with a beer on a hot day and making slurping noises as I drink it, holding it up to the member saying, "I do this every day, but in moderation and I'm not an alcoholic". I CAN, you can't
just making sure you all know. But hey, I do it in moderation and I STILL am not an alcoholic. " Or more in comparison would be to go to an AA forum online and post I drink wine every night with dinner and am not an alcoholic. Just childish! Just cruel and completely stupid.
No, the fact I have been successful at losing weight does not make me a jerk, that I managed to fit in a small amount of low fat ice cream into my daily diet... which isn't even a particularly unhealthy food, especially in the small amounts I eat.
If others used a scale and weighed their portions like I continually recommend, I guarantee they'd have similar results to myself.0 -
They do it because they are jerks. They know EXACTLY what they are doing when they brag about that. They are rubbing it in the faces of those who struggle to lose. They know that the majority of people here are hurt, are suffering, are overweight, or are obese, uneducated on health and nutrition, are sick, are depressed about their current condition and are wanting to change. Wanting to learn. They make sure YOU KNOW, THEY CAN and YOU CAN'T so what is wrong with YOU and how cool are they? It is very immature and very rude. It's as if they are in junior high. Like I said, they know what they are doing. Why do they think we care? What is the purpose of getting on MFP and saying, "look at my six pack and I eat ice cream every day." It's like me sitting outside of an AA meeting with a beer on a hot day and making slurping noises as I drink it, holding it up to the member saying, "I do this every day, but in moderation and I'm not an alcoholic". I CAN, you can't just making sure you all know. But hey, I do it in moderation and I STILL am not an alcoholic. " Or more in comparison would be to go to an AA forum online and post I drink wine every night with dinner and am not an alcoholic. Just childish! Just cruel and completely stupid.
No, the fact I have been successful at losing weight does not make me a jerk, that I managed to fit in a small amount of low fat ice cream into my daily diet... which isn't even a particularly unhealthy food, especially in the small amounts I eat.
If others used a scale and weighed their portions like I continually recommend, I guarantee they'd have similar results to myself.
per usual with you, this is not what she meant.0 -
Where's that great graphic that someone posted. Researchers do small study, draw a possible conclusion. Media outlets pick it up and put sensational headline to it. Blogs pick it up and it goes viral. Then Grandma says she won't eat donuts anymore.
The thing is... even when studies are inconclusive because there are too many variables to control, or small N's or whatever, doesn't mean that their data is wrong. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's only part of the picture.
So, even though Mercola is a quack who lives to sensationalize risks, LiveStrong bloggers are unemployed wannabe writers paid by the word, and Dr. Oz is a supplement *kitten*, it doesn't mean that sometimes the tiny little shred of actual information they picked up on is wrong. Sometimes it's just them screaming a death scare when really it's a red flag. But, still a red flag.
If you're looking for incontrovertible proof that MSG, aspartame, Round-up Ready Corn are safe, you won't find it. You also won't find incontrovertible proof that they are toxic.
Sidesteel made a great post above about exaggerating the danger associated with foods like diet soda. That someone who is obese and is struggling to make life-long changes can get overwhelmed by all the "don't eat that" messages on MFP. But, that doesn't mean that any and everything we put in our mouths is healthy for our bodies. We may choose to eat it anyway because it tastes good or it provides some emotional comfort. If we choose to limit it, or exchange it for something that is more healthful, that doesn't mean we're wrong.0 -
Where's that great graphic that someone posted. Researchers do small study, draw a possible conclusion. Media outlets pick it up and put sensational headline to it. Blogs pick it up and it goes viral. Then Grandma says she won't eat donuts anymore.
I live to serve! :laugh:
0 -
My only evidence is the migraine I get if I have anything to eat or drink with aspertame. CAN.NOT.TAKE.IT. You could even give me something with a small amount in it and I'd know in about 20 minutes. So my conclusion, is that it's bad for me. I wouldn't judge anyone that says otherwise. Different strokes...0
-
They do it because they are jerks. They know EXACTLY what they are doing when they brag about that. They are rubbing it in the faces of those who struggle to lose. They know that the majority of people here are hurt, are suffering, are overweight, or are obese, uneducated on health and nutrition, are sick, are depressed about their current condition and are wanting to change. Wanting to learn. They make sure YOU KNOW, THEY CAN and YOU CAN'T so what is wrong with YOU and how cool are they? It is very immature and very rude. It's as if they are in junior high. Like I said, they know what they are doing. Why do they think we care? What is the purpose of getting on MFP and saying, "look at my six pack and I eat ice cream every day." It's like me sitting outside of an AA meeting with a beer on a hot day and making slurping noises as I drink it, holding it up to the member saying, "I do this every day, but in moderation and I'm not an alcoholic". I CAN, you can'tChronic inflammation is a key feature of insulin resistance and obesity(TLR4 is important to modulating insulin resistance))[1]
The saturated fatty acid (SFA) palmitate induces insulin resistance in cultured skeletal muscle cells, which may be related to NF-kappaB activation. Collectively, these results demonstrate that SFA-induced NF-kappaB activation coincides with insulin resistance and depends on FA chain length.
So now we have NF-kB linked to insulin resistance. Chronic high levels of glucose can lead to insulin resistance. NF-kB is also linked to simple carbs. [3]
A 3 months study comparing a paleo diet to a diabetics diet concluded the paleo diet improved glycemic control. [4]
A diet that has lower GI foods lowered lower inflammation to a greater degree compared to an isocaloric diet with a higher carbohydrate and lower protein content although the weight loss was the same.[5]
Funny how last year you guys where bashing paleo because there was no "evidence," here it is now. I got many more paleo studies if you want them.
1.http://www.hindawi.com/journals/grp/2010/212563
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18957619
3. http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20071126/refined-carbohydrates-up-diabetes-risk
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19604407
5.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17189547
You don't have to eat hardcore paleo to up your protein intake and moderately reduce carbohydrates, with an eye to glycemic loads.
I am not promoting the paleo diet. My point is how HIGH GI foods can lead to cellular inflammation.
If you eat too much of it, maybe. In small to moderate quantities in context to a balanced diet, I don't think they're that much of an issue. I've been using myself as a guinea pig here
because a great deal of replacement starches for celiacs are higher GI. It's why people gain weight when they go GF and eat them, just like I did. I've lost weight through moderating them, but not completely eliminating them.
I'd agree but some of these guys preach eating ice cram everyday. just making sure you all know. But hey, I do it in moderation and I STILL am not an alcoholic. " Or more in comparison would be to go to an AA forum online and post I drink wine every night with dinner and am not an alcoholic. Just childish! Just cruel and completely stupid.
0 -
Its really hard to find human studies of anything. Things are mostly being tested in rats and no lifetime studies have been done. Someone tried to attempt a lifetime study with rats and GMO's but one study doesn't make the information definitive.
People tend to forget that in science something is a fact until someone proves it wrong. There are plenty of diets for instance that have been studied and we were told hey this is best. 10 years later we're told, my bad we were wrong. At some point people were told not to eat more than an egg a day because of "studies".
People believe what they choose to believe whether or not its enough evidence for you shouldn't matter unless you're going to give them evidence to dispute their claims. Its not that controversial. Is what you're doing working for you? Thats all that matters. You're not going to stop the rest of the world from believing an article that says something is bad for you. You're not going to stop them from passing it on to other people. When people give me information it is my job to determine if I believe that information. I won't tell people hey stop saying this if you didn't search the world for proof thats good enough for me. Let people think for themselves and if they believe everything they hear then let them deal with the consequences if any.
Have you ever been recommended to buy any product food or not and looked for human studies to prove whether or not its really good for you?
They sell us **** every day thats not good for us and tell us that it is and vice versa! Some people believe it and some don't. I don't see the point of this thread. Do you want people to admit that there aren't many human studies? Do you want people to stop believing those things are bad? Is this your way of encouraging people to do research? Do you want everyone to give evidence with opinions? Whatever you aim, good luck.
On one hand, I kind of agree with you but at the same time I think it's important to understand that lack of human studies and stating something as a scientific fact is a bit of a slippery slope. The scientific method, when done correctly, is done the same across the board, whether it is with food studies, quantum mechanics, or medical advances. It is true that something presented as scientific fact remains so until unproven, but I think this should instill more confidence in what is presented rather than less. Science is self-correcting.
It's easy to write off a food study by saying, "they're always changing the story", but the same thing is often done in medicine when a new advancement comes along. If you get sick, and go to the doctor, and they prescribe a current, peer-reviewed "proven" treatment, would you write it off as easily?
The main problem with people quoting studies on the internet is that the majority of the time, what is quoted is part of an ongoing study that possibly hasn't made it to the human testing stage, or hasn't been verified yet as a fact. Most of us (self included) don't usually take the time to double and triple check what we say, which is why there is an avalanche of misinformation predicated onto the forums. If someone has done their homework, and is presenting a case that is verified as scientific fact, and not merely a part of an ongoing study, then what they say is most likely legit.
I could be wrong, but I think that is what the OP is requesting, and if so, then this is an important discussion.
I agree with you, but do you see the difference in your approach to the topic vs the op? Maybe its just me but what you said makes me go hmmmm thats a good point. I could be giving a lot of people half information and maybe I should think about that. What the op said makes me wonder why he didn't just say why people should be more informal about those topics. Its comes off as I don't agree with people who do this so they should give me more evidence so that I can believe them. Thats not going to stop them or me from giving people misinformation. Its going to make me google for what he wants and have more half information to give to people. Had you not made that statement I would have never guessed that he was trying to help stop people from giving misinformation on half information.
Look at the various topics that people say X is bad for you. It would stand to reason there should be some evidence to draw such a conclusion, however one finds that their "evidence" is some livestrong article or equally crappy article. When asked to present real evidence they seem to be unable to do so, which makes you wonder how in the world did they reach the conclusion X is bad in the first place?
I'd rather provide someone with the correct information than try to figure out why or how they reached their initial conclusion. To each their own.0 -
I can only assume this exact debate happened about 40-50 years ago about smoking. Probably not over the internet though (maybe through text message?).
The fact is there isn't a lot of research out there, because there isn't a lot to research. Just like smoking, drinking a diet soda isn't going to kill you. Drinking a diet soda a day for 20-30 year? Who knows.
The "well I drink diet coke everyday, and I'm fine" argument doesn't really work. My grandma smoked everyday of her life, and she lived into her mid 80's. Does that mean cigarettes aren't harmful???0 -
I can only assume this exact debate happened about 40-50 years ago about smoking. Probably not over the internet though (maybe through text message?).
The fact is there isn't a lot of research out there, because there isn't a lot to research. Just like smoking, drinking a diet soda isn't going to kill you. Drinking a diet soda a day for 20-30 year? Who knows.
The "well I drink diet coke everyday, and I'm fine" argument doesn't really work. My grandma smoked everyday of her life, and she lived into her mid 80's. Does that mean cigarettes aren't harmful???
Exactly! ^^^^^^^
Well, except for the text message part, lol. It's a comparatively new thang. Below is what I found with a quick search.
"The design of dedicated SMS (Short Message Service) alphanumeric communications began in 1993, but commercial use was minimal in 1995, and was still comparatively slow by 2000, when the billing systems were standardized. It was not until the proliferation of text-capable cellphones in 2001-2004 that the messaging phenomena reached its current levels."0 -
50 + yrs ago smoking was advertised as being healthy. My dad told me this as he puffed his cigarette in my face. He is now 72. I thought he made that up as an excuse to tell me WHY he was doing something "so bad". Fast forward four years, my Grandpa passed on and as I was helping to clean his house I found some Playboy magazines from around 1950ish. So of course I had to peek. Low and behold, there were articles in them saying "smoking is good for your health". OMG! My dad wasn't lying, they DID advertise that. Later studies came out that said smoking can cause cancer. My dad, a chain smoker, started at age 11 (that's what they did back then, no laws saying you had to be 18) and heck it was 'HEALTHY'. He is still at it and meaner than a rattlesnake. So who knows. . .I can only assume this exact debate happened about 40-50 years ago about smoking. Probably not over the internet though (maybe through text message?).
The fact is there isn't a lot of research out there, because there isn't a lot to research. Just like smoking, drinking a diet soda isn't going to kill you. Drinking a diet soda a day for 20-30 year? Who knows.
The "well I drink diet coke everyday, and I'm fine" argument doesn't really work. My grandma smoked everyday of her life, and she lived into her mid 80's. Does that mean cigarettes aren't harmful???
Some people die of things thought to be linked to stuff like smoking, etc. Others it seems to never bother them. ((shrug)).0 -
They do it because they are jerks. They know EXACTLY what they are doing when they brag about that. They are rubbing it in the faces of those who struggle to lose. They know that the majority of people here are hurt, are suffering, are overweight, or are obese, uneducated on health and nutrition, are sick, are depressed about their current condition and are wanting to change. Wanting to learn. They make sure YOU KNOW, THEY CAN and YOU CAN'T so what is wrong with YOU and how cool are they? It is very immature and very rude. It's as if they are in junior high. Like I said, they know what they are doing. Why do they think we care? What is the purpose of getting on MFP and saying, "look at my six pack and I eat ice cream every day." It's like me sitting outside of an AA meeting with a beer on a hot day and making slurping noises as I drink it, holding it up to the member saying, "I do this every day, but in moderation and I'm not an alcoholic". I CAN, you can'tChronic inflammation is a key feature of insulin resistance and obesity(TLR4 is important to modulating insulin resistance))[1]
The saturated fatty acid (SFA) palmitate induces insulin resistance in cultured skeletal muscle cells, which may be related to NF-kappaB activation. Collectively, these results demonstrate that SFA-induced NF-kappaB activation coincides with insulin resistance and depends on FA chain length.
So now we have NF-kB linked to insulin resistance. Chronic high levels of glucose can lead to insulin resistance. NF-kB is also linked to simple carbs. [3]
A 3 months study comparing a paleo diet to a diabetics diet concluded the paleo diet improved glycemic control. [4]
A diet that has lower GI foods lowered lower inflammation to a greater degree compared to an isocaloric diet with a higher carbohydrate and lower protein content although the weight loss was the same.[5]
Funny how last year you guys where bashing paleo because there was no "evidence," here it is now. I got many more paleo studies if you want them.
1.http://www.hindawi.com/journals/grp/2010/212563
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18957619
3. http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20071126/refined-carbohydrates-up-diabetes-risk
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19604407
5.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17189547
You don't have to eat hardcore paleo to up your protein intake and moderately reduce carbohydrates, with an eye to glycemic loads.
I am not promoting the paleo diet. My point is how HIGH GI foods can lead to cellular inflammation.
If you eat too much of it, maybe. In small to moderate quantities in context to a balanced diet, I don't think they're that much of an issue. I've been using myself as a guinea pig here because a great deal of replacement starches for celiacs are higher GI. It's why people gain weight when they go GF and eat them, just like I did. I've lost weight through moderating them, but not completely eliminating them.
I'd agree but some of these guys preach eating ice cram everyday. just making sure you all know. But hey, I do it in moderation and I STILL am not an alcoholic. " Or more in comparison would be to go to an AA forum online and post I drink wine every night with dinner and am not an alcoholic. Just childish! Just cruel and completely stupid.
Truth is they never really experienced obesity. They really had nothing to push through or fight for to be where they are at today.
Ask these people anything about the psychological aspect of weight loss. How do you take someone severely obese and get them in to shape? They wouldn't know where to begin. They never been there.
orly?
While that might be true for some people, it sure isn't true for me (and I eat something sweet within my macros every day). I have worked hard to lose the weight I've lost. It's taken dedication and discipline. I work out regularly and have developed much better eating habits. I am going to hit Onederland soon, probably in the next two weeks. I haven't done my official weigh in yet here... (because I do it on Fridays) but right now sitting at 203 lbs, which is less than the ticker. That's 60 pounds down from last July.0 -
Regulation vs corporate competition? The first article below highlights the consumer addiction side of it by concluding that "while most people support nutrition guidelines to help Americans make better choices along with the posting of calorie counts on restaurant menus, nearly six in ten of those surveyed opposed unhealthy food taxes and three-quarters of respondents were against government restrictions on what people can purchase."
Obesity survey suggests many Americans don't know fat can cause cancer, infertility
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57562421/obesity-survey-suggests-many-americans-dont-know-fat-can-cause-cancer-infertility/
Can you get hooked on diet soda?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/01/diet.soda.health/index.html
Diet Drinks for Preventing Diabetes? No Way!
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diabetes-diet-drinks-for-preventing-diabetes-no-way.html
[/quote
For those of you that came to this thread to actually read studies, several have been posted. No one has yet to comment on the human study I posted regarding MSG and obesity, except to ask for the full study, which I provided. Let's see if anyone reads and has any intelligent discourse on any of these human or otherwise studies. Or do people just want to argue, without reading the research?
The OP has been silent regarding these studies. I thought he wanted to read them and have discourse.
because he's not actually interested in discussion.
Perhaps OP is at the gym....
Or at work? I doubt this though, since he works 9-5 trolling the forums.
Funny when you asked a legit question, I gave you helpful advice. Unlike the time you tried to troll everyone by posting Sission's CHO curve which isn't even based in reality
And the one time you gave me legitimate non judgemental advise I welcomed it... and to be honest was shocked. Your previous M.O. was to bash my beliefs and provide input, when you my friend were not asked for your advice. I don't bother to comment on the "I eat 1200 cals a day" threads as I know I wil have nothing nice to say. The same should go for you when it comes "Paleo/GMO/organic" posts.0 -
I can only assume this exact debate happened about 40-50 years ago about smoking. Probably not over the internet though (maybe through text message?).
The fact is there isn't a lot of research out there, because there isn't a lot to research. Just like smoking, drinking a diet soda isn't going to kill you. Drinking a diet soda a day for 20-30 year? Who knows.
The "well I drink diet coke everyday, and I'm fine" argument doesn't really work. My grandma smoked everyday of her life, and she lived into her mid 80's. Does that mean cigarettes aren't harmful???
Exactly! ^^^^^^^
Well, except for the text message part, lol. It's a comparatively new thang. Below is what I found with a quick search.
"The design of dedicated SMS (Short Message Service) alphanumeric communications began in 1993, but commercial use was minimal in 1995, and was still comparatively slow by 2000, when the billing systems were standardized. It was not until the proliferation of text-capable cellphones in 2001-2004 that the messaging phenomena reached its current levels."
Where'd you get your research from?0 -
There's a documentary on Netflix right now. It's called Hungry for Change. It covers some of these topics. Check it out.0
-
I'm surprised nobody has commented on this human study that I posted. Did you read it?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22681873
Eviscerated:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-10-14.pdfIn addition, there are several questionable points regarding the study methods as follows;
1. According to their previous study, subjects who met exclusion criteria were excluded from
the 349 subjects resulted in 315 participants [16]. Although the exclusion criteria are the
same for both studies, participants were 349 in this study. Participants may be the same
because the median MSG intake and interquartile range are the same for both studies,
thus, there is a discrepancy about the number of participants.
2. They provided 250 g MSG in a box and measured weight of returned box to assess MSG
consumption under the assumption that MSG intake measured during 10 days reflect past
MSG intake behavior. This method seems to be similar to the weighted food component
measurement which is often used for food consumption studies and thought to be more
accurate than other methods such as 24 h food recall or food frequency questionnaire.
However, in the usual weighted food component measurement, participants use their own
ingredient whereas these participants used free MSG which was given by the investigator
in this study. This circumstance is quite different from the usual evaluation for
participants, and possibly affected the results. If free MSG is provided, it is very likely
that individuals use more MSG than usual because it is free. Thus, this method could not
be considered to be in the same category as the usual weighted food component
measurement and validation information should be provided.
3. In rural areas of Thailand, multi generations are often living together in the family home.
There may be a number of children in each such family home, but the study excluded
children under 10 years regardless of the number of children in the calculation, and this
possibly affected the MSG consumption data, although the statistical analysis was
adjusted for age.
4. None of the median and percentage values of the five criteria of ATP III were individually
associated with MSG intake cross-sectionally. Only the percentage of the metabolic
syndrome (defined as three or more of the five criteria are met) is associated with MSG
intake. This seems to be an oversight. More detailed data should be provided. In addition,
the observed associations are very weak with the very small odds ratios for overweight
and metabolic syndrome (1.16 and 1.14 respectively) although statistically significant.
5. They chose MSG users only so there is no comparison of the non-MSG users and MSG
users.
Eviscerated:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-10-14.pdf
These are the people that ran the above study. Do you really trust them? I think it is a conflict of interest for them to even conduct or fund a study on MSG don't you?
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/WhoRuns.html
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
Sorry to break it to you, but potential conflict of interest does not automatically invalidate their criticism.
Care to address the actual arguments being made?0 -
Wanna see a picture of me with hives when I eat MSG? It's sexy. Honest.
*lick lick*
Same thing happens to my 4y old son. Scary0 -
I thought you were making a joke when you said people text messaged 40 or 50 yrs ago. And then said, "probably not over the Internet" because not only is text messaging only available in the last decade so is home Internet. Without even researching this, I can tell you for a 100% fact that the info she stated is correct because I remember it and experienced it. My husband got a a new job as a head hauncho for AT&T cell phone company in 1995, I remember bc I was pregnant. That year very few people had cell phones in fact the only ones that I knew personally who had one were myself and my husband. I didn't have a single friend who had one. There were a few cell phones you saw people have prior to that, but they looked not like the phones you see today and it was only business men. They were the size of a brick. I think I saw one or two ever. A few of my friends had car phones in the late 1980s but again that was only two of them. Most of us used pagers to communicate with in the early 1990s - 2000.. In 2001 I divorced my hubby and got a cell phone of my very own for the first time, many of my friends were starting to get their very first cell phones also. There was no text feature. In 2002, I got a second cell phone and it was the first time I had seen text messaging. I still remember where I was and who my first texts went to. We all thought it was SOOO cool. Now I hate texting.I can only assume this exact debate happened about 40-50 years ago about smoking. Probably not over the internet though (maybe through text message?).
The fact is there isn't a lot of research out there, because there isn't a lot to research. Just like smoking, drinking a diet soda isn't going to kill you. Drinking a diet soda a day for 20-30 year? Who knows.
The "well I drink diet coke everyday, and I'm fine" argument doesn't really work. My grandma smoked everyday of her life, and she lived into her mid 80's. Does that mean cigarettes aren't harmful???
Exactly! ^^^^^^^
Well, except for the text message part, lol. It's a comparatively new thang. Below is what I found with a quick search.
"The design of dedicated SMS (Short Message Service) alphanumeric communications began in 1993, but commercial use was minimal in 1995, and was still comparatively slow by 2000, when the billing systems were standardized. It was not until the proliferation of text-capable cellphones in 2001-2004 that the messaging phenomena reached its current levels."
Where'd you get your research from?
In 1998 Internet in homes were just starting to really get popular. The first time I bought a computer and got Internet was in 2000.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 973 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions