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

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.

http://www.relfe.com/aspartame_92.html

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.

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.

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.

http://www.relfe.com/aspartame_92.html

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.

Its really hard to find human studies of anything. Things are mostly being tested in rats and no lifetime studies have been done. Someone tried to attempt a lifetime study with rats and GMO's but one study doesn't make the information definitive.

People tend to forget that in science something is a fact until someone proves it wrong. There are plenty of diets for instance that have been studied and we were told hey this is best. 10 years later we're told, my bad we were wrong. At some point people were told not to eat more than an egg a day because of "studies".

People believe what they choose to believe whether or not its enough evidence for you shouldn't matter unless you're going to give them evidence to dispute their claims. Its not that controversial. Is what you're doing working for you? Thats all that matters. You're not going to stop the rest of the world from believing an article that says something is bad for you. You're not going to stop them from passing it on to other people. When people give me information it is my job to determine if I believe that information. I won't tell people hey stop saying this if you didn't search the world for proof thats good enough for me. Let people think for themselves and if they believe everything they hear then let them deal with the consequences if any.

Have you ever been recommended to buy any product food or not and looked for human studies to prove whether or not its really good for you?

They sell us **** every day thats not good for us and tell us that it is and vice versa! Some people believe it and some don't. I don't see the point of this thread. Do you want people to admit that there aren't many human studies? Do you want people to stop believing those things are bad? Is this your way of encouraging people to do research? Do you want everyone to give evidence with opinions? Whatever you aim, good luck.

On one hand, I kind of agree with you but at the same time I think it's important to understand that lack of human studies and stating something as a scientific fact is a bit of a slippery slope. The scientific method, when done correctly, is done the same across the board, whether it is with food studies, quantum mechanics, or medical advances. It is true that something presented as scientific fact remains so until unproven, but I think this should instill more confidence in what is presented rather than less. Science is self-correcting.

It's easy to write off a food study by saying, "they're always changing the story", but the same thing is often done in medicine when a new advancement comes along. If you get sick, and go to the doctor, and they prescribe a current, peer-reviewed "proven" treatment, would you write it off as easily?

The main problem with people quoting studies on the internet is that the majority of the time, what is quoted is part of an ongoing study that possibly hasn't made it to the human testing stage, or hasn't been verified yet as a fact. Most of us (self included) don't usually take the time to double and triple check what we say, which is why there is an avalanche of misinformation predicated onto the forums. If someone has done their homework, and is presenting a case that is verified as scientific fact, and not merely a part of an ongoing study, then what they say is most likely legit.

I could be wrong, but I think that is what the OP is requesting, and if so, then this is an important discussion.

I'm surprised nobody has commented on this human study that I posted. Did you read it?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22681873

In addition, there are several questionable points regarding the study methods as follows;
1. According to their previous study, subjects who met exclusion criteria were excluded from
the 349 subjects resulted in 315 participants [16]. Although the exclusion criteria are the
same for both studies, participants were 349 in this study. Participants may be the same
because the median MSG intake and interquartile range are the same for both studies,
thus, there is a discrepancy about the number of participants.
2. They provided 250 g MSG in a box and measured weight of returned box to assess MSG
consumption under the assumption that MSG intake measured during 10 days reflect past
MSG intake behavior. This method seems to be similar to the weighted food component
measurement which is often used for food consumption studies and thought to be more
accurate than other methods such as 24 h food recall or food frequency questionnaire.
However, in the usual weighted food component measurement, participants use their own
ingredient whereas these participants used free MSG which was given by the investigator
in this study. This circumstance is quite different from the usual evaluation for
participants, and possibly affected the results. If free MSG is provided, it is very likely
that individuals use more MSG than usual because it is free. Thus, this method could not
be considered to be in the same category as the usual weighted food component
measurement and validation information should be provided.
3. In rural areas of Thailand, multi generations are often living together in the family home.
There may be a number of children in each such family home, but the study excluded
children under 10 years regardless of the number of children in the calculation, and this
possibly affected the MSG consumption data, although the statistical analysis was
adjusted for age.
4. None of the median and percentage values of the five criteria of ATP III were individually
associated with MSG intake cross-sectionally. Only the percentage of the metabolic
syndrome (defined as three or more of the five criteria are met) is associated with MSG
intake. This seems to be an oversight. More detailed data should be provided. In addition,
the observed associations are very weak with the very small odds ratios for overweight
and metabolic syndrome (1.16 and 1.14 respectively) although statistically significant.
5. They chose MSG users only so there is no comparison of the non-MSG users and MSG
users.

Here is a link to a whole page of studies done on Aspartame.... granted most of the studies are done on rats, the reason for this is because they first test things on animals to see the safety for humans, it is illegal to perform some of these test on humans. Others studies are no looking at the long term use of certian products on humans and the increased numbers of ailments that are related to the "animal" studies is scary. Just the fact that aspartame turns into formaldehyde is enough for me to keep it away from my famiily. The fact is they did not know enough about the long term use of the products and the toxic buildup, the companies putting this stuff out are more concerned about the bottom dollar, if something can't kill you right away then the FDA approves it... just look at the Tabacco companies.

http://aspartame.mercola.com/sites/aspartame/studies.aspx

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/embalm.html

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.