Where's the evidence re: aspartame, msg, carbs, gmo etc?
Replies
-
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 thisNote: 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....
He did answer your question. And the "have fun trying to eat less chemicals" is actually a remark that all food is comprised of chemicals at a molecular level, whether it came from a plant or a factory. And here is another tidbit, those chemicals used in the factory are food-grade chemicals gathered from other plants in nature.
I'm not sure why you have to take his remarks so personally. Or why you can't understand that he is trying to keep misinformation from being perpetuated? Honestly, it's people like you that take offense at innocent off-handed remarks that have made him so bitter and that much more disdainful towards the topic.
He didn't start this thread with a sarcastic tone. He challenged people to provide definitive, scientific proof to support their beliefs about avoiding certain types of food, and instead of meeting that challenge, you attacked him. :huh:0 -
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.
Rocket surgeon. Ha.
Well, that's just the problem. It costs a LOT of money and time to conduct human trials, and especially with nutrition-related hypotheses, it's really damned hard to eliminate confounding factors. It's virtually impossible to do a randomized, double-blind prospective clinical trial related to humans and their diet, at least one that is factored high enough to be meaningful and last long enough to collect relevant data. So... we don't get those conclusive human studies. Which means all that we have are human studies that must use language like "may cause", "might be related to", "further studies are needed", "inconclusive".
So we make the best decisions we can, based on what little data we have. If a compound causes illness in a rat, guinea pig, rabbit, or monkey, that doesn't mean it will cause an illness in humans. However, it may raise a cause for concern and further research to understand the mechanism of action and any dose-dependency. The aspartame example is a good one. It seems safe because the levels needed to cause toxicity are much higher than the normal "dose" ingested by the average person. So no worries, unless you're one of the people who gets migraines from it. Or who craves sugar because of it.
Does that mean aspartame is good for you? Not really. Just that there's no conclusive data that it's unsafe at "average" consumption levels. So you won't die from your diet coke. Would you be better off drinking water? Probably so.
I have this conversation with my hubby all the time now, because he wants us to move to a town that is undergoing a massive fracking boom. Beautiful homes surrounding dozens of oil and natural gas wells. Is there data that fracking causes health issues? Well, for a long time that answer was "no", because no one was collecting the data. That doesn't mean that it's safe to live 100 ft from a well, and have explosives going off a mile or two below your home, or diesel trucks driving down your street 24x7. In 5-10 years, I'm betting that there will be conclusive data, in addition to a boat load of "incidents" to point to. I just don't want to be one of the people living in those communities while the data is being collected on polluted ground water and cancer clusters. Hubby wants to bury his head in the oil-rich sand and think only of the cheap, pretty house.
Sorry... got off on a fracking rant.0 -
Well, that's just the problem. It costs a LOT of money and time to conduct human trials, and especially with nutrition-related hypotheses, it's really damned hard to eliminate confounding factors. It's virtually impossible to do a randomized, double-blind prospective clinical trial related to humans and their diet, at least one that is factored high enough to be meaningful and last long enough to collect relevant data. So... we don't get those conclusive human studies. Which means all that we have are human studies that must use language like "may cause", "might be related to", "further studies are needed", "inconclusive".
So we make the best decisions we can, based on what little data we have. If a compound causes illness in a rat, guinea pig, rabbit, or monkey, that doesn't mean it will cause an illness in humans. However, it may raise a cause for concern and further research to understand the mechanism of action and any dose-dependency. The aspartame example is a good one. It seems safe because the levels needed to cause toxicity are much higher than the normal "dose" ingested by the average person. So no worries, unless you're one of the people who gets migraines from it. Or who craves sugar because of it.
Does that mean aspartame is good for you? Not really. Just that there's no conclusive data that it's unsafe at "average" consumption levels. So you won't die from your diet coke. Would you be better off drinking water? Probably so.
The point is that if you are like me and love soda. You shouldn't eliminate from your diet just because someone somewhere said that 2% of 68,000 women got a brain cancer AND there is a POSSIBILITY that diet soda caused it.
That's like saying I should avoid driving because 300 people died on my state's highway system this year.0 -
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 thisNote: 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....
He did answer your question. And the "have fun trying to eat less chemicals" is actually a remark that all food is comprised of chemicals at a molecular level, whether it came from a plant or a factory. And here is another tidbit, those chemicals used in the factory are food-grade chemicals gathered from other plants in nature.
I'm not sure why you have to take his remarks so personally. Or why you can't understand that he is trying to keep misinformation from being perpetuated? Honestly, it's people like you that take offense at innocent off-handed remarks that have made him so bitter and that much more disdainful towards the topic.
He didn't start this thread with a sarcastic tone. He challenged people to provide definitive, scientific proof to support their beliefs about avoiding certain types of food, and instead of meeting that challenge, you attacked him. :huh:
I didnt attack anybody. Simply asked a question directly to the OP, which as I recall, was not you who keeps responding with snarkytone to my inquiries ... I never said I took anything personally just that ive seen him on the forums and noticed that every time someone mentions chemicals he appears from out of nowhere to defend the use of them. I think he is capable of answering his own questions and doesnt need a team to stand up for him...
Blue pajamas it is then.0 -
I get what the OP is saying about fear mongering and conspiracy theorists.
But, what is wrong with being a healthy skeptic?0 -
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.
I can understand this line of thinking. But just because one is concerned about all of the chemicals in our food chain doesn't make them an alarmist. And just because you want to appropriately share what you think is valuable information doesn't make you a nutcase. I have a friend that is irreparably, neurologically jammed up from consuming aspartame products for years. So when I see someone I care about following that path, I feel compelled to talk about it. When it comes up on forums like this, I feel compelled to talk about it.
There are countless people experiencing adverse effects from these chemicals. Yes, this is "just" anecdotal evidence. And then there are scientific studies showing adverse effects in one way or another for many of these chemicals. Some of these studies have been done on humans and some on animals. I'm sure when they're done on rodents the scientists know how to extrapolate the results taking into consideration the dosages given, etc.
My point is, I choose not to knowingly eat/drink anything that have any additives because it isn't worth the risk to me. It doesn't feel right. I'm not going to put all my trust in food scientists whose job is to create recipes/foods to sell to the public so the manufacturer makes money. Their incentive isn't my health and safety. I'm not against capitalism, I'm against making a buck at other's expense. The corporate food giants don't care about you. And they have tons of money to fight campaigns to make themselves look like good guys even if they're peddling ****. If they cared about us they'd be offering truly nutritious foods and not empty calories in every bite. Macros are just one part of the food picture. What about micronutrients? What about vitamins, minerals, trace minerals. What about the nutrient devoid crops that they pay the farmer's to grow so they can make their nutrient devoid products. Yes, the grains that are grown to be made into mainstream grain products are nutrient devoid because the soil is dead. Do you think they care about that? If gmo's, aspartame, msg is actually very bad for you . . . do you think the big giants would admit it? They have too much to lose if they did admit it, and they'd have too many law suits to fight. If msg is safe, why do they hide it in countless products. If gmos are safe then why is monsanto spending so much money keeping it off the label?
Okay. Now I have to get back to work. I wish you all well.0 -
The purpose of this thread is simple, if you think aspartame, msg, carbs, gmo foods, animal protein etc etc are bad for you, simply post a few links to the human studies that show it is bad for you. This is not for conspiracies on why there is no evidence something is harmful, simply present some of the current literature that shows that it is.
With all the people here who climb out the woodwork to tell people how bad something is, surely there is evidence that those people are basing their conclusions on.
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.
lol you're posting this because you know they don't exist by and large, and thus, you don't believe the people who support these positions.
that's fine for you.
meanwhile I won't blindly put my faith in corporations, pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists and the government to tell me what's healthy and what isn't.
simple as that. personal preference.0 -
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.
I love you so hard right now.0 -
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.
I love you so hard right now.
I see you enjoy pickles......0 -
I have a friend that is irreparably, neurologically jammed up from consuming aspartame products for years. So when I see someone I care about following that path, I feel compelled to talk about it. When it comes up on forums like this, I feel compelled to talk about it.
What condition did they acquire and how was this proven to be caused by aspartame?0 -
I love you so hard right now.
I see you enjoy pickles......
They're probably soaked in chemicals....
*Sips my diet coke and thinks about what all natural chemical free meal I'll make for dinner... Cause that's how I roll!*0 -
It'd be hilarious if in a truly ironic twist, one of the evils like aspartame or GMO were eventually conclusively proven to actually extend your life/ward off certain diseases.
:laugh:0 -
The purpose of this thread is simple, if you think aspartame, msg, carbs, gmo foods, animal protein etc etc are bad for you, simply post a few links to the human studies that show it is bad for you. This is not for conspiracies on why there is no evidence something is harmful, simply present some of the current literature that shows that it is.
With all the people here who climb out the woodwork to tell people how bad something is, surely there is evidence that those people are basing their conclusions on.
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.
lol you're posting this because you know they don't exist by and large, and thus, you don't believe the people who support these positions.
that's fine for you.
meanwhile I won't blindly put my faith in corporations, pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists and the government to tell me what's healthy and what isn't.
simple as that. personal preference.
Oh but you do, you've blindly put your faith in Beachbody to include efficacious dosages of their 70 super ingredients in Shakeology and thus justify the ridiculous price. Also you've put your faith in them, that their label claim of all natural ingredients is true, alas it's not0 -
I would like to rephrase "bad for you" as "bad for us" in which case I think some of these may apply. I prefer to avoid GMO foods when I can because there is a strong chance that buying gmo foods sends some or most of my money to soul-crushing enormous biotech companies that do a lot of nefarious things to farmers and food policy in general. Some modifications are probably fine, and some are probably not coming from such companies. And certainly there should be a place for genetics in our food policy that is used in a non-heinously-greedy way. But, I prefer to use it as a shorthand to reduce the likelihood of my money going to companies I ethically oppose.
As for aspartame, I do what I can to reduce my intake because I want to train my body and mind to consume things that don't need additional sweetness (e.g. water). When something should be sweet I use honey, agave, or sugar and log it into my journal. This holds me accountable for having something sweet. I think aspartame is "bad for you" in this sense - by legitimizing our collective sweet teeth.0 -
meanwhile I won't blindly put my faith in corporations, pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists and the government to tell me what's healthy and what isn't.
Oh the irony! So what makes a scientist suddenly decide to research the occurrence of brain cancer in diet soda drinkers (I'm just picking on this study because it was mentioned earlier). I mean... they don't just sit around and say hmmm... I bet there is something evil about aspartame... let me just go and figure out what it is.
No... they are paid by lobbyists of the sugar cane industry to find something wrong with aspartame... not that I have anything against sugar either, but my point is that studies, particularly those concerning food products, are generally biased in some way.
Oh... and I like to add that 30 years ago some scientists decided that aspartame is safe for human consumption. Since then, scientists have been trying to prove that it isn't safe... it's been 30 years... and they haven't proven it yet.0 -
I don't like lamb. It's too gamey.0
-
We're waitingWanna see a picture of me with hives when I eat MSG? It's sexy. Honest.
*lick lick*
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.
*editted for spelling
I was just offering up sexy pics, yo.0 -
The purpose of this thread is simple, if you think aspartame, msg, carbs, gmo foods, animal protein etc etc are bad for you, simply post a few links to the human studies that show it is bad for you. This is not for conspiracies on why there is no evidence something is harmful, simply present some of the current literature that shows that it is.
With all the people here who climb out the woodwork to tell people how bad something is, surely there is evidence that those people are basing their conclusions on.
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.
lol you're posting this because you know they don't exist by and large, and thus, you don't believe the people who support these positions.
that's fine for you.
meanwhile I won't blindly put my faith in corporations, pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists and the government to tell me what's healthy and what isn't.
simple as that. personal preference.
Oh but you do, you've blindly put your faith in Beachbody to include efficacious dosages of their 70 super ingredients in Shakeology and thus justify the ridiculous price. Also you've put your faith in them, that their label claim of all natural ingredients is true, alas it's not
this is your only argument against me, and it's not even true, since I don't use it or sell it.
0 -
meanwhile I won't blindly put my faith in corporations, pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists and the government to tell me what's healthy and what isn't.
Oh the irony! So what makes a scientist suddenly decide to research the occurrence of brain cancer in diet soda drinkers (I'm just picking on this study because it was mentioned earlier). I mean... they don't just sit around and say hmmm... I bet there is something evil about aspartame... let me just go and figure out what it is.
No... they are paid by lobbyists of the sugar cane industry to find something wrong with aspartame... not that I have anything against sugar either, but my point is that studies, particularly those concerning food products, are generally biased in some way.
Oh... and I like to add that 30 years ago some scientists decided that aspartame is safe for human consumption. Since then, scientists have been trying to prove that it isn't safe... it's been 30 years... and they haven't proven it yet.
It's a big conspiracy. In all countries, and all governments.
(notsrs)0 -
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 thisNote: 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....
He did answer your question. And the "have fun trying to eat less chemicals" is actually a remark that all food is comprised of chemicals at a molecular level, whether it came from a plant or a factory. And here is another tidbit, those chemicals used in the factory are food-grade chemicals gathered from other plants in nature.
I'm not sure why you have to take his remarks so personally. Or why you can't understand that he is trying to keep misinformation from being perpetuated? Honestly, it's people like you that take offense at innocent off-handed remarks that have made him so bitter and that much more disdainful towards the topic.
He didn't start this thread with a sarcastic tone. He challenged people to provide definitive, scientific proof to support their beliefs about avoiding certain types of food, and instead of meeting that challenge, you attacked him. :huh:
I didnt attack anybody. Simply asked a question directly to the OP, which as I recall, was not you who keeps responding with snarkytone to my inquiries ... I never said I took anything personally just that ive seen him on the forums and noticed that every time someone mentions chemicals he appears from out of nowhere to defend the use of them. I think he is capable of answering his own questions and doesnt need a team to stand up for him...
Blue pajamas it is then.
Exactly where is my snarky tone? You are reading far more into posts than is actually there.0 -
Well, that's just the problem. It costs a LOT of money and time to conduct human trials, and especially with nutrition-related hypotheses, it's really damned hard to eliminate confounding factors. It's virtually impossible to do a randomized, double-blind prospective clinical trial related to humans and their diet, at least one that is factored high enough to be meaningful and last long enough to collect relevant data. So... we don't get those conclusive human studies. Which means all that we have are human studies that must use language like "may cause", "might be related to", "further studies are needed", "inconclusive".
So we make the best decisions we can, based on what little data we have. If a compound causes illness in a rat, guinea pig, rabbit, or monkey, that doesn't mean it will cause an illness in humans. However, it may raise a cause for concern and further research to understand the mechanism of action and any dose-dependency. The aspartame example is a good one. It seems safe because the levels needed to cause toxicity are much higher than the normal "dose" ingested by the average person. So no worries, unless you're one of the people who gets migraines from it. Or who craves sugar because of it.
Does that mean aspartame is good for you? Not really. Just that there's no conclusive data that it's unsafe at "average" consumption levels. So you won't die from your diet coke. Would you be better off drinking water? Probably so.
The point is that if you are like me and love soda. You shouldn't eliminate from your diet just because someone somewhere said that 2% of 68,000 women got a brain cancer AND there is a POSSIBILITY that diet soda caused it.
That's like saying I should avoid driving because 300 people died on my state's highway system this year.
Totally agree. You love soda. You look at the data. You make your choice. Another person might look at that data and think that even an infinitesimal risk is not worth it when there are alternatives. For you, that would feel like a HUGE deprivation because it's something you love. For someone else, they might not feel deprived by cutting it out, but rather just feel good about drinking something else instead.
My name is Caribougal, and I'm a Diet Coke addict. I am great at saying no to LOTS of other things that I think are not adding to my health, and I feel good about my choices. But I crave diet coke. I try to fortify myself against it by drinking Kombucha. But if I'm out of Kombucha, which is often, I give in to the pleasures of diet coke. I know that having a few ounces of diet coke a day is not going to hurt me. But I also know that I could be making a better choice.0 -
I would love to see actual evidence myself.0
-
I was just offering up sexy pics, yo.
Well in that case, can you post a pic of you eating a pickle? LOL oh..wait.
You should see what happens when I eat avocado
:blushing:0 -
Well, that's just the problem. It costs a LOT of money and time to conduct human trials, and especially with nutrition-related hypotheses, it's really damned hard to eliminate confounding factors. It's virtually impossible to do a randomized, double-blind prospective clinical trial related to humans and their diet, at least one that is factored high enough to be meaningful and last long enough to collect relevant data. So... we don't get those conclusive human studies. Which means all that we have are human studies that must use language like "may cause", "might be related to", "further studies are needed", "inconclusive".
So we make the best decisions we can, based on what little data we have. If a compound causes illness in a rat, guinea pig, rabbit, or monkey, that doesn't mean it will cause an illness in humans. However, it may raise a cause for concern and further research to understand the mechanism of action and any dose-dependency. The aspartame example is a good one. It seems safe because the levels needed to cause toxicity are much higher than the normal "dose" ingested by the average person. So no worries, unless you're one of the people who gets migraines from it. Or who craves sugar because of it.
Does that mean aspartame is good for you? Not really. Just that there's no conclusive data that it's unsafe at "average" consumption levels. So you won't die from your diet coke. Would you be better off drinking water? Probably so.
The point is that if you are like me and love soda. You shouldn't eliminate from your diet just because someone somewhere said that 2% of 68,000 women got a brain cancer AND there is a POSSIBILITY that diet soda caused it.
That's like saying I should avoid driving because 300 people died on my state's highway system this year.
Totally agree. You love soda. You look at the data. You make your choice. Another person might look at that data and think that even an infinitesimal risk is not worth it when there are alternatives. For you, that would feel like a HUGE deprivation because it's something you love. For someone else, they might not feel deprived by cutting it out, but rather just feel good about drinking something else instead.
My name is Caribougal, and I'm a Diet Coke addict. I am great at saying no to LOTS of other things that I think are not adding to my health, and I feel good about my choices. But I crave diet coke. I try to fortify myself against it by drinking Kombucha. But if I'm out of Kombucha, which is often, I give in to the pleasures of diet coke. I know that having a few ounces of diet coke a day is not going to hurt me. But I also know that I could be making a better choice.
What is Kombucha? I'm not familiar with this.0 -
meanwhile I won't blindly put my faith in corporations, pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists and the government to tell me what's healthy and what isn't.
Oh the irony! So what makes a scientist suddenly decide to research the occurrence of brain cancer in diet soda drinkers (I'm just picking on this study because it was mentioned earlier). I mean... they don't just sit around and say hmmm... I bet there is something evil about aspartame... let me just go and figure out what it is.
No... they are paid by lobbyists of the sugar cane industry to find something wrong with aspartame... not that I have anything against sugar either, but my point is that studies, particularly those concerning food products, are generally biased in some way.
Oh... and I like to add that 30 years ago some scientists decided that aspartame is safe for human consumption. Since then, scientists have been trying to prove that it isn't safe... it's been 30 years... and they haven't proven it yet.
lol this is my point exactly. i don't trust lobby-funded research period. sugar's bad for you. aspartame's probably bad for you. let's move on. but if you wanna drink it go for it. doesn't affect me whatsoever.0 -
Well, that's just the problem. It costs a LOT of money and time to conduct human trials, and especially with nutrition-related hypotheses, it's really damned hard to eliminate confounding factors. It's virtually impossible to do a randomized, double-blind prospective clinical trial related to humans and their diet, at least one that is factored high enough to be meaningful and last long enough to collect relevant data. So... we don't get those conclusive human studies. Which means all that we have are human studies that must use language like "may cause", "might be related to", "further studies are needed", "inconclusive".
So we make the best decisions we can, based on what little data we have. If a compound causes illness in a rat, guinea pig, rabbit, or monkey, that doesn't mean it will cause an illness in humans. However, it may raise a cause for concern and further research to understand the mechanism of action and any dose-dependency. The aspartame example is a good one. It seems safe because the levels needed to cause toxicity are much higher than the normal "dose" ingested by the average person. So no worries, unless you're one of the people who gets migraines from it. Or who craves sugar because of it.
Does that mean aspartame is good for you? Not really. Just that there's no conclusive data that it's unsafe at "average" consumption levels. So you won't die from your diet coke. Would you be better off drinking water? Probably so.
The point is that if you are like me and love soda. You shouldn't eliminate from your diet just because someone somewhere said that 2% of 68,000 women got a brain cancer AND there is a POSSIBILITY that diet soda caused it.
That's like saying I should avoid driving because 300 people died on my state's highway system this year.
Totally agree. You love soda. You look at the data. You make your choice. Another person might look at that data and think that even an infinitesimal risk is not worth it when there are alternatives. For you, that would feel like a HUGE deprivation because it's something you love. For someone else, they might not feel deprived by cutting it out, but rather just feel good about drinking something else instead.
My name is Caribougal, and I'm a Diet Coke addict. I am great at saying no to LOTS of other things that I think are not adding to my health, and I feel good about my choices. But I crave diet coke. I try to fortify myself against it by drinking Kombucha. But if I'm out of Kombucha, which is often, I give in to the pleasures of diet coke. I know that having a few ounces of diet coke a day is not going to hurt me. But I also know that I could be making a better choice.
What is Kombucha? I'm not familiar with this.
It's like carbonated vinegar made from a fungus. It tastes great as long as you completely mask the taste with other things.0 -
meanwhile I won't blindly put my faith in corporations, pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists and the government to tell me what's healthy and what isn't.
Oh the irony! So what makes a scientist suddenly decide to research the occurrence of brain cancer in diet soda drinkers (I'm just picking on this study because it was mentioned earlier). I mean... they don't just sit around and say hmmm... I bet there is something evil about aspartame... let me just go and figure out what it is.
No... they are paid by lobbyists of the sugar cane industry to find something wrong with aspartame... not that I have anything against sugar either, but my point is that studies, particularly those concerning food products, are generally biased in some way.
Oh... and I like to add that 30 years ago some scientists decided that aspartame is safe for human consumption. Since then, scientists have been trying to prove that it isn't safe... it's been 30 years... and they haven't proven it yet.
It's a big conspiracy. In all countries, and all governments.
(notsrs)
how do you feel about the FDA? do you trust them?0 -
It's like carbonated vinegar made from a fungus. It tastes great as long as you completely mask the taste with other things.
Thanks... I'll take my chances with the aspartame. LOL!0 -
It's like carbonated vinegar made from a fungus. It tastes great as long as you completely mask the taste with other things.
Thanks... I'll take my chances with the aspartame. LOL!
you'll take the man-made chemical with no nutritional benefit (or other benefit for that matter) over the naturally occurring fermented drink that will do wonders for your digestive tract and thus your overall health? makes sense.0 -
meanwhile I won't blindly put my faith in corporations, pharmaceutical companies, lobbyists and the government to tell me what's healthy and what isn't.
Oh the irony! So what makes a scientist suddenly decide to research the occurrence of brain cancer in diet soda drinkers (I'm just picking on this study because it was mentioned earlier). I mean... they don't just sit around and say hmmm... I bet there is something evil about aspartame... let me just go and figure out what it is.
No... they are paid by lobbyists of the sugar cane industry to find something wrong with aspartame... not that I have anything against sugar either, but my point is that studies, particularly those concerning food products, are generally biased in some way.
Oh... and I like to add that 30 years ago some scientists decided that aspartame is safe for human consumption. Since then, scientists have been trying to prove that it isn't safe... it's been 30 years... and they haven't proven it yet.
lol this is my point exactly. i don't trust lobby-funded research period. sugar's bad for you. aspartame's probably bad for you. let's move on. but if you wanna drink it go for it. doesn't affect me whatsoever.
Sugar is vital for you, see blood glucose.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions