Where's the evidence re: aspartame, msg, carbs, gmo etc?

24567…12

Replies

  • patentguru
    patentguru Posts: 312 Member
    "Bad for you." Knowing how enzymes work- like a puzzle piece- on only specific compounds, I would state that any alteration of the food (hydrogenation (margarine), gmo (alters chemical make up of produced plant), chlorination (sucralose), etc.) would cause these enzymes not to work on the modified food. Too many studies to cite.
  • nicolamoonbrains
    nicolamoonbrains Posts: 72 Member
    Here are a few things I dragged up from the internet about aspartame...



    An article from the New england journal of medicine on the "Effects of Diets High in Sucrose or Aspartame on The Behavior and Cognitive Performance of Children"

    The study concluded "Even when intake exceeds typical dietary levels, neither dietary sucrose nor aspartame affects children's behavior or cognitive function."

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199402033300501


    This is a recent article: Aspartame: EFSA consults on its first full risk assessment

    The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has today launched a public consultation on its draft scientific opinion on the safety of the artificial sweetener aspartame. To carry out this full risk assessment, EFSA has undertaken an in-depth review of peer-reviewed scientific and other literature on aspartame and its breakdown products, including new human studies. All stakeholders and interested parties are invited to comment on the draft opinion through the online public consultation by 15 February 2013. As part of this important process and the Authority’s commitment to actively engaging with stakeholders, EFSA will also hold a meeting with interested parties to discuss its draft opinion and the feedback received from the online public consultation.

    http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130108.htm

    There is also an FAQ on the efsa site about this new risk assessment on aspartame and this is what they had to say on some questions I felt were important:

    3. Is it safe to eat products containing aspartame?

    Aspartame has been authorised for use in foods and as a table-top sweetener for almost 30 years in many countries throughout the world following thorough safety evaluations. The first safety assessment of aspartame carried out in Europe was published by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF)[*] in 1984. Subsequent complementary assessments were made by the SCF in 1988, 1997 and 2002. The SCF established in 1984 an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for aspartame of 40 mg/kg body weight. The ADI is an estimate of the amount of a food additive, expressed on a body weight basis that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without appreciable health risk.

    EFSA is currently carrying out a full re-evaluation of the safety of aspartame and has concluded, in a draft opinion of its Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food (ANS Panel) published on 8 January 2013 that aspartame does not pose a safety concern at current levels of exposure. The Panel considers that the ADI for aspartame set by the SCF is safe for the general population and consumer exposure to this sweetener is below the ADI. (See questions 8 and 15 to 28 for further information on the draft opinion and ongoing public consultation on the draft opinion.)

    4. How much aspartame is it safe to consume?

    When risk assessors like EFSA establish an ADI for a given substance, their scientific advice informs the decision-making of risk managers regarding the authorisation of specific proposed uses of the substance (i.e. the foods in which it can be used and the maximum proposed levels of use). For most products containing aspartame, consumption would need to be exceptionally high and regular over a person’s lifetime, in order to exceed the ADI. For instance, to reach the ADI for aspartame (40 mg/kg body weight), an adult weighing 60kg would have to drink 12 (330ml) cans of a diet soft drink (containing aspartame at the maximum permitted levels of use), every day for the rest of his/her life. However, in reality, aspartame is used at lower levels and amounts found in soft drinks can be 3 to 6 times less than the maximum permitted levels; this would increase the number of cans required to meet the ADI to 36 or more.

    6. So if aspartame is safe, why is EFSA doing a full re-evaluation now?

    By 2020, EFSA must re-evaluate all food additives which were authorised in the EU prior to 20 January 2009, as well as their permitted uses, as set down by Regulation EU 257/2010 on the re-evaluation of approved food additives. Given the enormity of this task, the European Commission established a schedule of priorities for this systematic re-evaluation programme. Most sweeteners, like aspartame, are scheduled for re-evaluation towards the end of the review period as their safety was evaluated more recently than many other additives authorised for use in the EU; for example, colours, many preservatives and emulsifiers were considered more urgent as many of these approved food additives were evaluated several years before sweeteners. However, any food additive can be re-prioritised at any time. In May 2011, EFSA was asked by the European Commission to bring forward the full re-evaluation of the safety of aspartame from 2020 to 2012 after concerns were raised by Members of the European Parliament.

    9. Why have questions been raised about aspartame in the past?

    Prior to its authorisation and since its market introduction, the safety of aspartame has sparked interest and at times controversy. Questions have primarily been raised about some of the early experimental animal studies utilised to evaluate the safety of aspartame. Extensive reviews on aspartame have been carried out by many national and international regulatory and advisory bodies. All have concluded that the scientific evidence is sufficient to confirm that aspartame is safe for human consumption.

    EFSA is currently carrying out a full re-evaluation of the safety of aspartame and published in January a draft opinion for public consultation.

    10. What information is EFSA looking at? Has it reviewed the studies submitted with the original application for the authorisation of aspartame in Europe?

    The ANS Panel’s comprehensive review was made possible following two public calls for data. As part of its re-evaluation, EFSA launched a public call for scientific data as well as a thorough literature review. The Authority received access to over 600 both published and unpublished scientific studies and datasets following the call for data. Reaffirming its commitment to openness and transparency, EFSA published the full list of these scientific studies and also made publicly available on the EFSA website previously unpublished scientific data including the 112 original documents on aspartame which were submitted to support the request for authorisation of aspartame in Europe in the early 1980s. These studies have been critically evaluated and underpin the discussion points addressed in the draft opinion.

    In the course of its scientific deliberations, the Panel found that there were too little data available on 5-benzyl-3,6-dioxo-2-piperazine acetic acid (DKP) and other potential degradation products that can be formed from aspartame in food and beverages when stored under certain conditions. EFSA therefore launched an additional call for data on DKP and other degradation products of aspartame.



    Some of you may already be aware of the documentary "Sweet Misery" but here is a link for those who are interested in this topic:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owtF2nt2VX4
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,228 Member
    Just to stir the pot.

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/01/30/ajcn.112.050997

    Yes, I got it via a huff post article.

    And go!

    This is another correlative study. It "follows" participants in the study and tracks their consumption of artificially flavored drinks versus their consumption of fruit juice. Of the 66,118 female participants, a whopping total of 2.07% drank artificially flavored drinks AND developed cancer. This does not preclude the possibility that the 2.07% of the 66,118 women came into contact with some other possible carcinogen.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,228 Member
    "Bad for you." Knowing how enzymes work- like a puzzle piece- on only specific compounds, I would state that any alteration of the food (hydrogenation (margarine), gmo (alters chemical make up of produced plant), chlorination (sucralose), etc.) would cause these enzymes not to work on the modified food. Too many studies to cite.

    That is ridiculous. Cite at least one study and let us review it.
  • faster_than_flash
    faster_than_flash Posts: 114 Member
    I went to look at sweet'n'low and I noticed they removed the "this causes cancer in lab rats" clause. Guess it's safe now :D
  • caribougal
    caribougal Posts: 865 Member
    Aw, no one is playing from my team.

    Ok... Here's one for you... carrageenan. No human studies. Mostly rat, bunnies, and guinea pig studies starting in the 70's through to last year that raise serious red flags. At first, it seemed only degraded carrageenan could be an issue. However there are intrepid researchers trying to demonstrate that both undegraded and degraded forms can be linked to inflammation, ulcerative colitis, and perhaps colon cancer. There's no traction in the food industry, even the organic industry, to admit to any issues with it or any move to remove it from food. Yet it's purposefully used in research to induce inflammation. Want to test your investigational anti-inflammatory compound? Inject some rats with carrageenan to induce edema.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11675262

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6468767

    http://jn.nutrition.org/content/138/3/469.abstract

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(81)91964-4/fulltext (reference list of studies)

    http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/976489/reload=0;jsessionid=WzxHdqnmBFSB1PJ6y94v.6

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304383578942374

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021997579900367

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2032452/

    It's one of those additives that are used just to give foods a certain "mouth feel". It's not really a necessary additive. Why consume it when you can choose not to? Carrageenan is in A LOT of non-organic foods. Here are some organic ones that are free of carrageenan.

    Cottage Cheese
    • Nancy's
    • Organic Valley

    Cream
    • Organic Valley (pasteurized only...ultrapasteurized contains carrageenan)
    • Butterworks Farm
    • Strauss Family Creamery

    Ice Cream
    • Stonyfield
    • Green & Black's Organic
    • Julie's (except mint fudge, mocha fudge and peanut butter fudge)
    • Alden's

    Yogurt
    • Seven Stars
    • Stonyfield (all brands except caramel Oikos and Squeezers)
    • Horizon (all except Tuberz)
    • Wallaby

    Soymilk
    • EdenSoy
    • Westsoy

    Do I consume carrageenan? Sure do, when I'm treating myself to Ben & Jerry's Chocolate Fudge Brownie ice cream. And probably plenty of other things I forget to check, plus any time I'm eating at a restaurant or friend's house. Doesn't mean I can't try to avoid it when alternatives exist. Why not?

    On the plus side for carageenan, it seems to be a potent inhibitor of the HPV virus, and research is underway to use it as a topical microbicide to prevent transmission. I was shocked to read that. I used to spend all my working hours discussing HPV with physicians. I talked about HPV, immunology and vaccinology 40 hrs a week. And yet... that piece of trivia eluded me.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16839203

    Carry on!
  • judydelo1
    judydelo1 Posts: 281 Member
    I've taken the time to post some studies. However, sigh, I suspect that really you just want to fight and not do research with an open mind. Never-the-less, in the spirit of goodwill I have spent my time to help you. Please don't be rude in return. This is a sampling of research out there related to msg.

    The Studies below were published in US National Library of Medicine - PubMed:

    Monosodium glutamate (MSG) intake is associated with the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in a rural Thai population.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22681873

    Mice suffered ill effects when fed combination of msg and apartame
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22697049


    In the News:

    Here's an article reporting on a study conducted in China, msg and obesity.
    http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/08/14/Monosodium_glutamate_linked_to_obesity/UPI-24051218690920/

    Here is an article reporting on a study called, "Combining Food Additives Could Harm Nervous System"
    http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Combining-food-additives-could-harm-nervous-system-study

    Here is an article reporting on a study conducted in Spain showing a link between msg and obesity
    http://www.euroresidentes.com/Blogs/2005/12/scientists-in-spain-link-additive-to.htm


    This link brings to you a bunch of studies that you can research if you're truly interested.
    http://www.msgtruth.org/related.htm
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,228 Member
    I've taken the time to post some studies. However, sigh, I suspect that really you just want to fight and not do research with an open mind. Never-the-less, in the spirit of goodwill I have spent my time to help you. Please don't be rude in return.

    I've known the OP (on the internet) a long time. I've never known him to be rude. But I would like to point out that he asked for human studies.
  • lizziebeth1028
    lizziebeth1028 Posts: 3,602 Member
    Pulls up chair, pops open a diet coke......:wink:
  • judydelo1
    judydelo1 Posts: 281 Member
    I've taken the time to post some studies. However, sigh, I suspect that really you just want to fight and not do research with an open mind. Never-the-less, in the spirit of goodwill I have spent my time to help you. Please don't be rude in return.

    I've known the OP (on the internet) a long time. I've never known him to be rude. But I would like to point out that he asked for human studies.


    I've seen these types of threads get ugly. Sometimes they are just bait for a good fight. I didn't mean to be rude myself, and sorry if I came off that way. Just tired of voicing my opinion and having people attack for the sake of attacking and not trying to understand and respect.

    Some of the studies I posted are human studies.
  • waldo56
    waldo56 Posts: 1,861 Member
    I've taken the time to post some studies. However, sigh, I suspect that really you just want to fight and not do research with an open mind. Never-the-less, in the spirit of goodwill I have spent my time to help you. Please don't be rude in return.

    I've known the OP (on the internet) a long time. I've never known him to be rude. But I would like to point out that he asked for human studies.

    It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out, unless you're into the whole conspiracy theories thing, that if there were any conclusive human studies, these supposed evils would not be in the marketplace.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Mice suffered ill effects when fed combination of msg and apartame
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22697049

    MSG dosage used in this study is roughly 7 to 8 times the average amount consumed by most Asian cultures (1.2 to 1.7g/day)
    Aspartame dosage is also unnecessarily high -- equivalent to ~4k mg -- about a case of soda/day.

    There's also a laundry list of other issues with this study but beyond quoting the unrealistic and inapplicable doses used, I'd have to basically plagiarize Krieger's work on this topic, and since I have a lot of respect for him I'll not do that =)
  • Mia_RagazzaTosta
    Mia_RagazzaTosta Posts: 4,885 Member
    I'm in solely to see who has the brass balls to argue with Acg :drinker:
  • sgrubby
    sgrubby Posts: 103 Member
    Here's an unbiased and informative article from the Mayo Clinic's website. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/artificial-sweeteners/MY00073
  • SlvrBluGoddess
    SlvrBluGoddess Posts: 239 Member
    *sits down munching on a Baby Ruth & drinking a Diet Dr Pepper to see how this all pans out*
  • Tyggress73
    Tyggress73 Posts: 104 Member
    I don't know about any formal studies or what-not proving these things are bad for you.

    Having said that, it seems logical and reasonable to me that eating foods with fewer chemicals would probably be better for our bodies than processed crap, including aspartame, msg, gmo, etc. I don't recall, looking back through the years that we, as a society, had nearly the health issues we have today. What changed? We now eat faster, more convenient, more processed foods with more chemicals in them, and we stopped moving so much. Simple as that.

    As for carbs...I see nothing wrong with them.
  • fresh_start59
    fresh_start59 Posts: 590 Member
    Wanna see a picture of me with hives when I eat MSG? It's sexy. Honest.

    An allergy to a certain food item, does not mean that it is harmful to the average person, just you. I know lots of people that are allergic to peanuts and/or milk, but neither one of those things deserves to be labeled as bad. It is bad for them, but not as a standard.

    Exactly!
    I have no problem with artificial sweeteners, nuts or dairy. But ...

    I get nasty-scary heart palpitations from protein powder. (still hoping to isolate the problem ingredient and find a tasty powder that I can use -- if not for shakes, then at least in homemade protein bars and other recipes).
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    I've taken the time to post some studies. However, sigh, I suspect that really you just want to fight and not do research with an open mind. Never-the-less, in the spirit of goodwill I have spent my time to help you. Please don't be rude in return. This is a sampling of research out there related to msg.

    The Studies below were published in US National Library of Medicine - PubMed:

    Monosodium glutamate (MSG) intake is associated with the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in a rural Thai population.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22681873

    Mice suffered ill effects when fed combination of msg and apartame
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22697049


    In the News:

    Here's an article reporting on a study conducted in China, msg and obesity.
    http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/08/14/Monosodium_glutamate_linked_to_obesity/UPI-24051218690920/

    Here is an article reporting on a study called, "Combining Food Additives Could Harm Nervous System"
    http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Combining-food-additives-could-harm-nervous-system-study

    Here is an article reporting on a study conducted in Spain showing a link between msg and obesity
    http://www.euroresidentes.com/Blogs/2005/12/scientists-in-spain-link-additive-to.htm


    This link brings to you a bunch of studies that you can research if you're truly interested.
    http://www.msgtruth.org/related.htm

    First, can you please tell me what the differences are between naturally occurring glutamate and MSG metabolically speaking? Secondly, if there is no difference metabolically speaking would you also avoid foods that have high glutamate content such as Parmesan cheese, broccoli etc?
  • RainHoward
    RainHoward Posts: 1,599 Member
    At this point it seems you can find a study proving something is good to counter a study saying the same thing is bad. I think that one of the largest problems with the things we consume daily is that there has yet to be long term human studies conducted on much of it.

    Having said that, I find it difficult to accept that consuming something like monsantos GMO corn is going to be good long term. This "food" kills insects for cripes sake. It's not just the long term affects on humans I'm concerned about but the affects on the environment as well.
  • Jxnsmma
    Jxnsmma Posts: 919 Member
    Im curious how come you're so pro all of these chemicals...? Every time I see someone comment about avoiding these ingredients in food, wouldnt ya know it Acg67 is the next poster saying "Why would you want to avoid these things? Theyre not bad for you at all!"

    Whats up with that? Why does it bother you so much when people want less chemicals in their food choices? I said in another thread that I want to eat cleaner, you told me there's dirt on my carrot! Whats up with that?! Dirt on my carrot bothers me less than msg in my everything else... and Im not saying I never eat chemicals... Im just trying to eat less of them wherever I can cut out the obvious ones...

    Its just like you're Pro chemicals.... kinda wierd really. Like youre the chemical police or something...

    GOOOOOOOOOOOOO ASPARTAME!
  • 3foldchord
    3foldchord Posts: 2,918 Member
    pretty much all artificial sweeteners trigger migraines in me, but I would never say they are bad for everyone in general.. but if someone is complaining of chronic headaches and they are drinking 3 diet Pepsis a day, I will suggest they ditch the Pepsi for a few weeks to see it it helps.
  • RainHoward
    RainHoward Posts: 1,599 Member
    Im curious how come you're so pro all of these chemicals...? Every time I see someone comment about avoiding these ingredients in food, wouldnt ya know it Acg67 is the next poster saying "Why would you want to avoid these things? Theyre not bad for you at all!"

    Whats up with that? Why does it bother you so much when people want less chemicals in their food choices? I said in another thread that I want to eat cleaner, you told me there's dirt on my carrot! Whats up with that?! Dirt on my carrot bothers me less than msg in my everything else... and Im not saying I never eat chemicals... Im just trying to eat less of them wherever I can cut out the obvious ones...

    Its just like you're Pro chemicals.... kinda wierd really. Like youre the chemical police or something...

    GOOOOOOOOOOOOO ASPARTAME!

    I read something a while ago that said "made in a plant=bad, made from a plant=good" made me chuckle. Not sure how we have gotten to the point as a culture where we seem to believe that a chemical is better for you than what is made in nature. Fake sugar, fake salt, fake flavor.

    I tracked down the runaway L and put it back in its home
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,228 Member
    Im curious how come you're so pro all of these chemicals...? Every time I see someone comment about avoiding these ingredients in food, wouldnt ya know it Acg67 is the next poster saying "Why would you want to avoid these things? Theyre not bad for you at all!"

    Whats up with that? Why does it bother you so much when people want less chemicals in their food choices? I said in another thread that I want to eat cleaner, you told me there's dirt on my carrot! Whats up with that?! Dirt on my carrot bothers me less than msg in my everything else... and Im not saying I never eat chemicals... Im just trying to eat less of them wherever I can cut out the obvious ones...

    Its just like you're Pro chemicals.... kinda wierd really. Like youre the chemical police or something...

    GOOOOOOOOOOOOO ASPARTAME!

    Acg isn't against people avoiding chemicals in their diet. He is against people using falsified or manipulated studies as a basis for that decision, and using the same said misinformation to persaude others to do the same. It's not that he is pro-chemicals, it's that he is anti-misinformation.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Im curious how come you're so pro all of these chemicals...? Every time I see someone comment about avoiding these ingredients in food, wouldnt ya know it Acg67 is the next poster saying "Why would you want to avoid these things? Theyre not bad for you at all!"

    Whats up with that? Why does it bother you so much when people want less chemicals in their food choices? I said in another thread that I want to eat cleaner, you told me there's dirt on my carrot! Whats up with that?! Dirt on my carrot bothers me less than msg in my everything else... and Im not saying I never eat chemicals... Im just trying to eat less of them wherever I can cut out the obvious ones...

    Its just like you're Pro chemicals.... kinda wierd really. Like youre the chemical police or something...

    GOOOOOOOOOOOOO ASPARTAME!

    Without any attempt to speak on his behalf, the reason I tend to show up in threads like this has nothing to do with someone else's diet. It has to do with someone spreading alarmist information to other people in an effort to scare them out of their diet soda.

    People take everything to such an extreme endpoint. If 300 cans of diet soda per day is shown to be harmful in rodents, they'll extrapolate that into "YOU CANNOT DRINK ONE CAN OF DIET SODA".

    And why do I care about that? Because somewhere out there is a miserable 400lb person reading this who already feels like *kitten* because they're fat and unhealthy, they're eating in a calorie deficit (which generally sucks), and now they've just found out that the one thing they still enjoy (namely their diet coke) they can no longer have because of poorly conducted or misinterpreted research.

    This is the same reason I'd tell people they don't have to eat 6 times per day to boost their metabolism or they don't need to stop eating after 8pm.

    Happiness generally decreases in prolonged dieting and there's no need to make it more miserable if it doesn't have to be.

    All that said, I really don't judge people who choose to give up diet soda or avoid chinese food.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Im curious how come you're so pro all of these chemicals...? Every time I see someone comment about avoiding these ingredients in food, wouldnt ya know it Acg67 is the next poster saying "Why would you want to avoid these things? Theyre not bad for you at all!"

    Whats up with that? Why does it bother you so much when people want less chemicals in their food choices? I said in another thread that I want to eat cleaner, you told me there's dirt on my carrot! Whats up with that?! Dirt on my carrot bothers me less than msg in my everything else... and Im not saying I never eat chemicals... Im just trying to eat less of them wherever I can cut out the obvious ones...

    Its just like you're Pro chemicals.... kinda wierd really. Like youre the chemical police or something...

    GOOOOOOOOOOOOO ASPARTAME!

    Have fun trying to eat less chemicals

    Anyways, had you taken the time to read the post you'd have seen this
    Note: This is not saying that if there is no evidence something is bad for you, that it is good for you. Just at the present time, there is no evidence to warrant the fear mongering over such substances.

    Certainly sounds pro chemicals (even though I do love me some chemicals)
  • Jxnsmma
    Jxnsmma Posts: 919 Member
    I read something a while ago that said "made in a plant=bad, made from a pant=good" made me chuckle. Not sure how we have gotten to the point as a culture where we seem to believe that a chemical is better for you than what is made in nature. Fake sugar, fake salt, fake flavor.

    K, LOL, I had to read that 3x. I thought you were trying to say things made from a pair of pants were good. LMAO! Got it now...

    silly runaway "L"...
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,228 Member
    Im curious how come you're so pro all of these chemicals...? Every time I see someone comment about avoiding these ingredients in food, wouldnt ya know it Acg67 is the next poster saying "Why would you want to avoid these things? Theyre not bad for you at all!"

    Whats up with that? Why does it bother you so much when people want less chemicals in their food choices? I said in another thread that I want to eat cleaner, you told me there's dirt on my carrot! Whats up with that?! Dirt on my carrot bothers me less than msg in my everything else... and Im not saying I never eat chemicals... Im just trying to eat less of them wherever I can cut out the obvious ones...

    Its just like you're Pro chemicals.... kinda wierd really. Like youre the chemical police or something...

    GOOOOOOOOOOOOO ASPARTAME!

    Without any attempt to speak on his behalf, the reason I tend to show up in threads like this has nothing to do with someone else's diet. It has to do with someone spreading alarmist information to other people in an effort to scare them out of their diet soda.

    People take everything to such an extreme endpoint. If 300 cans of diet soda per day is shown to be harmful in rodents, they'll extrapolate that into "YOU CANNOT DRINK ONE CAN OF DIET SODA".

    And why do I care about that? Because somewhere out there is a miserable 400lb person reading this who already feels like *kitten* because they're fat and unhealthy, they're eating in a calorie deficit (which generally sucks), and now they've just found out that the one thing they still enjoy (namely their diet coke) they can no longer have because of poorly conducted or misinterpreted research.

    This is the same reason I'd tell people they don't have to eat 6 times per day to boost their metabolism or they don't need to stop eating after 8pm.

    Happiness generally decreases in prolonged dieting and there's no need to make it more miserable if it doesn't have to be.

    All that said, I really don't judge people who choose to give up diet soda or avoid chinese food.

    Alright... now I want a Coke Zero!
  • Mia_RagazzaTosta
    Mia_RagazzaTosta Posts: 4,885 Member
    Im curious how come you're so pro all of these chemicals...? Every time I see someone comment about avoiding these ingredients in food, wouldnt ya know it Acg67 is the next poster saying "Why would you want to avoid these things? Theyre not bad for you at all!"

    Whats up with that? Why does it bother you so much when people want less chemicals in their food choices? I said in another thread that I want to eat cleaner, you told me there's dirt on my carrot! Whats up with that?! Dirt on my carrot bothers me less than msg in my everything else... and Im not saying I never eat chemicals... Im just trying to eat less of them wherever I can cut out the obvious ones...

    Its just like you're Pro chemicals.... kinda wierd really. Like youre the chemical police or something...

    GOOOOOOOOOOOOO ASPARTAME!

    Without any attempt to speak on his behalf, the reason I tend to show up in threads like this has nothing to do with someone else's diet. It has to do with someone spreading alarmist information to other people in an effort to scare them out of their diet soda.

    People take everything to such an extreme endpoint. If 300 cans of diet soda per day is shown to be harmful in rodents, they'll extrapolate that into "YOU CANNOT DRINK ONE CAN OF DIET SODA".

    And why do I care about that? Because somewhere out there is a miserable 400lb person reading this who already feels like *kitten* because they're fat and unhealthy, they're eating in a calorie deficit (which generally sucks), and now they've just found out that the one thing they still enjoy (namely their diet coke) they can no longer have because of poorly conducted or misinterpreted research.

    This is the same reason I'd tell people they don't have to eat 6 times per day to boost their metabolism or they don't need to stop eating after 8pm.

    Happiness generally decreases in prolonged dieting and there's no need to make it more miserable if it doesn't have to be.

    All that said, I really don't judge people who choose to give up diet soda or avoid chinese food.

    Alright... now I want a Coke Zero!

    ...aaaaand chinese food!
  • Jxnsmma
    Jxnsmma Posts: 919 Member
    Im curious how come you're so pro all of these chemicals...? Every time I see someone comment about avoiding these ingredients in food, wouldnt ya know it Acg67 is the next poster saying "Why would you want to avoid these things? Theyre not bad for you at all!"

    Whats up with that? Why does it bother you so much when people want less chemicals in their food choices? I said in another thread that I want to eat cleaner, you told me there's dirt on my carrot! Whats up with that?! Dirt on my carrot bothers me less than msg in my everything else... and Im not saying I never eat chemicals... Im just trying to eat less of them wherever I can cut out the obvious ones...

    Its just like you're Pro chemicals.... kinda wierd really. Like youre the chemical police or something...

    GOOOOOOOOOOOOO ASPARTAME!

    Have fun trying to eat less chemicals

    Anyways, had you taken the time to read the post you'd have seen this
    Note: This is not saying that if there is no evidence something is bad for you, that it is good for you. Just at the present time, there is no evidence to warrant the fear mongering over such substances.

    Certainly sounds pro chemicals (even though I do love me some chemicals)

    Didnt reallly answer my question. but whatever. And I did read that quote, thanks, I was just wondering why you seem to be all over this topic like white on rice every time I see you on these boards. Like its your mission or something... and so sarcastic all the time... "Have fun trying to eat less chemicals". Geez....
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Im curious how come you're so pro all of these chemicals...? Every time I see someone comment about avoiding these ingredients in food, wouldnt ya know it Acg67 is the next poster saying "Why would you want to avoid these things? Theyre not bad for you at all!"

    Whats up with that? Why does it bother you so much when people want less chemicals in their food choices? I said in another thread that I want to eat cleaner, you told me there's dirt on my carrot! Whats up with that?! Dirt on my carrot bothers me less than msg in my everything else... and Im not saying I never eat chemicals... Im just trying to eat less of them wherever I can cut out the obvious ones...

    Its just like you're Pro chemicals.... kinda wierd really. Like youre the chemical police or something...

    GOOOOOOOOOOOOO ASPARTAME!

    Have fun trying to eat less chemicals

    Anyways, had you taken the time to read the post you'd have seen this
    Note: This is not saying that if there is no evidence something is bad for you, that it is good for you. Just at the present time, there is no evidence to warrant the fear mongering over such substances.

    Certainly sounds pro chemicals (even though I do love me some chemicals)

    Didnt reallly answer my question. but whatever. And I did read that quote, thanks, I was just wondering why you seem to be all over this topic like white on rice every time I see you on these boards. Like its your mission or something... and so sarcastic all the time... "Have fun trying to eat less chemicals". Geez....

    Just me being helpful :)

    It's like if you had a kid who wouldn't wear blue pajamas because he was deathly afraid the boogeyman would come and get him if he did. Would you continue letting your kid have an irrational fear of sleeping in blue pajamas or try to enlighten them, that there is no evidence that wearing blue pajamas causes the boogeyman to come and get you?

Categories