Where's the evidence re: aspartame, msg, carbs, gmo etc?
Options
Replies
-
Chronic 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. 0 -
Pretty sure there is nothing wrong with the majority of artificial sweeteners, aside the fact that they don't taste very good for the most part. I prefer sucralose to aspartame, but I don't eat too much of it because of the erm, laxative effect. Stevia tastes alright for the most part, too. (that one is natural)
Some people need to be careful of sugar intake, and they are quite helpful for that purpose. If you don't like it, don't eat it... no problem.
The whole "natural" thing is a big pet peeve of mine... just think, cyanide is natural too! Smells like almonds (think marzipan) for a reason...
lolz?0 -
Pretty sure there is nothing wrong with the majority of artificial sweeteners, aside the fact that they don't taste very good for the most part. I prefer sucralose to aspartame, but I don't eat too much of it because of the erm, laxative effect. Stevia tastes alright for the most part, too. (that one is natural)
Some people need to be careful of sugar intake, and they are quite helpful for that purpose. If you don't like it, don't eat it... no problem.
The whole "natural" thing is a big pet peeve of mine... just think, cyanide is natural too! Smells like almonds (think marzipan) for a reason...
lolz?
I'm going to put you on ignore :wave: 0 -
Chronic 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.
I eat ice cream nearly everyday... :P
...but I weigh it on a food scale. It's a light variety. Fits right into my macros and hasn't hindered me one bit. Gives me the little bit of sweet so I don't crave sugar.0 -
Wanna 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
allergic to raw apples here. and i'd certainly never try and tell other people they are dangerous 0 -
Anecdotal obviously. Based on documentaries that were pretty one sided as well as commentaries from people who have left the industry in disgust. So once again one sided.
Many of these things are designed to do one thing. Get you to consume more of it then a competing product.
But to my personal situation.
For my diet I only have two limitations: Nothing with MSG or High fructose corn syrup. That is it.
Since I started I have found that I almost never get hunger pangs, even when I only have 500 on the day by the evening. Where as before I would get hungry within hours of having a huge meal. I would still feel full but want to eat more.
It took a few weeks(in which everything tasted awful) before regular foods started tasting okay, eventually even tasting good.
Now the other foods still taste good, and I have them when it is a social situation but it starting to get to the point where(it is probably psychosomatic) where I have some of these foods and it just makes me feel sick. Had a soda the other day and was woozy.
I guess even if you dont believe they are bad the more important question is what purpose do they serve and how is the purpose they serve to your betterment?
If aspartame means you are not drinking regular soda, and everything else stays constant. Go for it as that is an improvement.
However(as far as I can tell) the sole purpose of MSG is to make you consume more, and convince your body that what you are eating is more nutrient dense than it is.(causing your body to release insulin, hey look no glucose to digest. WAHAY now you are hungry again). Also the fact that it can cross the blood brain barrier(more likely in children) scares the **** out of me.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.0 -
-
Chronic 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.
I eat ice cream nearly everyday... :P
...but I weigh it on a food scale. It's a light variety. Fits right into my macros and hasn't hindered me one bit. Gives me the little bit of sweet so I don't crave sugar.
time will tell.
this.0 -
i like thisIts 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.0 -
Chronic 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.
I eat ice cream nearly everyday... :P
...but I weigh it on a food scale. It's a light variety. Fits right into my macros and hasn't hindered me one bit. Gives me the little bit of sweet so I don't crave sugar.
time will tell.
my 85 year old uncle is still eating it too... not seeing the ill effects.
Too much of anything is bad, really. Eating 45-60 grams of ice cream isn't going to hurt the majority of people. Depending on if I have a brownie with it (a GF one made from scratch). I have a certain amount of carbs I allow myself daily and I keep within them. I don't have to cut them out. All of my stats have improved without eliminating any macro nutrients.0 -
I don't have the human studies but I know the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia has been employed by the food industry for some time in the research of new products (sweet/carby things) and that research has been used to formulate the most addictive formations in food products. They "use" humans for their studies. A lot of the time, it's children.
Here's the homepage for their "Nutrition and Appetite" page.
http://www.monell.org/research/nutrition_and_appetite
"MANY ONGOING STUDIES AT MONELL ARE RELATED TO NUTRITION AND APPETITE, INCLUDING RESEARCH INTENDED TO ADVANCE THE UNDERSTANDING OF:
how taste receptors in the gut control physiology, metabolism and eating behavior
the use of simple measures of blood lipids to predict susceptibility to obesity induced by eating a high-fat diet
metabolic and hormonal effects of dietary components such as fructose and fat
how early experiences before and after birth shape flavor preferences and food choice across the lifespan
mechanisms involved in tasting calcium and how this sensory capability influences intake of this important mineral
how dietary fats and carbohydrates interact to induce overeating
brain mechanisms involved in the formation of food cravings and the effect such cravings have on eating behavior
genetic mechanisms underlying preferences for salt,sweeteners, and alcohol
factors that influence acceptance of novel foods
the neural response to food flavors and ingestion that contribute to nutrient digestion and metabolism "
Truly, I'm a "moderation" kind of girl myself but there is something to be said for how the food industry uses the research provided by Monell to best capitalize on those who have lost their way in the nutrition battle.0 -
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.html0 -
0 -
Awwwww snap...I knew this wouldn't disappoint! The fun is just getting started0
-
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.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.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.0 -
Why would I even click on this thread ?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions