Is diet pop REALLY that bad fro you????
Options
Replies
-
This is from a letter signed by 255 National Academy of Sciences members, including 11 Nobel laureates. It's about climate change but includes one very important line:yeah your above post isn't more accurate than my college textbooks... lol
I'm sorry... did you actually read them?
I'm in a research class right now... honor roll student... and what you are saying is complete BS. You are wrong!
"We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet."0 -
I've never had soda pop and don't want it. Enough said.0
-
alright how about THIS:
If you are open to the world of holistic medicine, and see value in it, then you will likely feel that there are issues with aspartame, and will, thus, stay away from diet sodas.
If you subscribe only to the things that have been officially proven through published scientific studies, and discount the value of holistic medicine, you will likely feel that aspartame is 100% safe.
OP: which category do you fall under?
Everyone else: we can stop arguing now because no one will convince anyone else they're wrong. Sound good?
Helpful summary of the above...
I reject your science based reality and substitute my holistic reality.
So there!0 -
alright how about THIS:
If you are open to the world of holistic medicine, and see value in it, then you will likely feel that there are issues with aspartame, and will, thus, stay away from diet sodas.
If you subscribe only to the things that have been officially proven through published scientific studies, and discount the value of holistic medicine, you will likely feel that aspartame is 100% safe.
OP: which category do you fall under?
Everyone else: we can stop arguing now because no one will convince anyone else they're wrong. Sound good?
Helpful summary of the above...
I reject your science based reality and substitute my holistic reality.
So there!
exactly. to each their own.0 -
"Science CAN prove things."
No. You need a bit of philosophy of science. It is not a criticism of science to say that it cannot "prove" anything--it is inherent in the need of science to have basic assumptions. Saying that does not mean that we can't accept some conclusions without absolute proof. It is probably unwise for my friend to reject the idea that his arsenic-laced water is harming him. There is a lot of scientific work that suggests that tiny amounts of arsenic ingested over a number of years may cause bowel cancer.0 -
This is from a letter signed by 255 National Academy of Sciences members, including 11 Nobel laureates. It's about climate change but includes one very important line:yeah your above post isn't more accurate than my college textbooks... lol
I'm sorry... did you actually read them?
I'm in a research class right now... honor roll student... and what you are saying is complete BS. You are wrong!
"We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet."
Ah... see I don't believe in climate change either... except that I believe that it has been proven to change... because you know... it's nature and it does that. Does man have an impact... if so, then the impact is negligible. Suggesting anything beyond that falls just short of saying that man can control nature... which has been proven that he can't.
So... controlled studies have their potential for error that can be controlled and essentially minimized, but qualitative studies have a tremendous potential for bias considering that it is highly unlikely that the participants of those studies ONLY consumed aspartame products. Therefore, the potential harmful effects can potentially be linked to other perpetuating factors.
You know, I've said all this before. Honestly, if I could link you to my text book, I would. But you know, climate change really is derailing the thread, and referring to another conspiracy topic doesn't really prove your point on this topic.0 -
Why won't anyone ever try just adding a twist from an organic lemon wedge to a glass of iced water (and because it is organic, you can throw the peel and all right in the water).
But, but i heard that sliced lemon wedges are tainted with feces, like the underside of restaurant chairs!
That's why I always wash my lemons with a fruit and vegetable wash designed for that purpose.
Wait, you buy special organic soap that specifically and organically designed to clean organic feces off of your organic fruit and vegetables?
Are you a smurf?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: (and I think you have aptly named yourself)
0 -
alright how about THIS:
If you are open to the world of holistic medicine, and see value in it, then you will likely feel that there are issues with aspartame, and will, thus, stay away from diet sodas.
If you subscribe only to the things that have been officially proven through published scientific studies, and discount the value of holistic medicine, you will likely feel that aspartame is 100% safe.
OP: which category do you fall under?
Everyone else: we can stop arguing now because no one will convince anyone else they're wrong. Sound good?
Helpful summary of the above...
I reject your science based reality and substitute my holistic reality.
So there!
exactly. to each their own.
0 -
Scientific "proof" exists in a context. There is a huge spectrum of "how likely to be true" any particular thing can be. Saying that nothing can ever be proven is a vast oversimplification and completely misses the whole point and utility of science, logic, and the scientific method. It's also used to support the fallacy, "you can't prove anything therefore I can just make up anything I want and pretend it's just as valid," which is just a type of false dichotomy.0
-
"Science CAN prove things."
No. You need a bit of philosophy of science. It is not a criticism of science to say that it cannot "prove" anything--it is inherent in the need of science to have basic assumptions. Saying that does not mean that we can't accept some conclusions without absolute proof. It is probably unwise for my friend to reject the idea that his arsenic-laced water is harming him. There is a lot of scientific work that suggests that tiny amounts of arsenic ingested over a number of years may cause bowel cancer.
I believe you are referencing Splenda here. Splenda is a sugar combined with chlorine. Not arsenic.
Coincidentally, chlorine is also in your salt... and it's not the part that makes you blood pressure go up.0 -
Scientific "proof" exists in a context. There is a huge spectrum of "how likely to be true" any particular thing can be. Saying that nothing can ever be proven is a vast oversimplification and completely misses the whole point and utility of science, logic, and the scientific method. It's also used to support the fallacy, "you can't prove anything therefore I can just make up anything I want and pretend it's just as valid," which is just a type of false dichotomy.
This.0 -
I don't normally post but I just wanted to say that I use Stevia and Splenda both on a daily basis. Stevia in my morning tea and splenda in the MIO I drink in my water 6 times a day and in my evening tea. I hate plain water so MIO makes me happy.
I started at 180 on here and whether I have been taking in artificial sweeteners or not hasn't made or broken me as far as my weight loss, IT IS mental...IT IS about everything in moderation...IT IS about getting off of your butt and exercising...I have lost 24 lbs and it is because I decided to give a crap about my body because it is the only one I have!
I imagine everything out there has the potential to effect all of us in different ways, we just discovered my son is allergic to strawberries, and I have a slight chocolate allergy, so we don't eat those things because they are bad FOR US, I don't get to say they are bad FOR YOU, that is up to your body. If you want to drink a diet soda once a day go for it just pay attention to your body and figure out what works for you. If we get cancer later for ingesting sweetners then we can worry about that then...live your life how it makes sense to you, just decide what it means to you to take care of yourself.0 -
This is from a letter signed by 255 National Academy of Sciences members, including 11 Nobel laureates. It's about climate change but includes one very important line:yeah your above post isn't more accurate than my college textbooks... lol
I'm sorry... did you actually read them?
I'm in a research class right now... honor roll student... and what you are saying is complete BS. You are wrong!
"We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet."
Ah... see I don't believe in climate change either... except that I believe that it has been proven to change... because you know... it's nature and it does that. Does man have an impact... if so, then the impact is negligible. Suggesting anything beyond that falls just short of saying that man can control nature... which has been proven that he can't.
So... controlled studies have their potential for error that can be controlled and essentially minimized, but qualitative studies have a tremendous potential for bias considering that it is highly unlikely that the participants of those studies ONLY consumed aspartame products. Therefore, the potential harmful effects can potentially be linked to other perpetuating factors.
You know, I've said all this before. Honestly, if I could link you to my text book, I would. But you know, climate change really is derailing the thread, and referring to another conspiracy topic doesn't really prove your point on this topic.
yyyeahhh.... the point of the post wasn't climate change - the point was 255 scientists and 11 nobel laureates all agreeing that science doesn't prove anything.0 -
alright how about THIS:
If you are open to the world of holistic medicine, and see value in it, then you will likely feel that there are issues with aspartame, and will, thus, stay away from diet sodas.
If you subscribe only to the things that have been officially proven through published scientific studies, and discount the value of holistic medicine, you will likely feel that aspartame is 100% safe.
OP: which category do you fall under?
Everyone else: we can stop arguing now because no one will convince anyone else they're wrong. Sound good?
Helpful summary of the above...
I reject your science based reality and substitute my holistic reality.
So there!
exactly. to each their own.
it's so funny because i'm a huge fan of Tyson, but I'm not sure he's a nutritional scientist now is he? (in fact with that quote he's probably referring to climate change and/or space!)0 -
I know and agree with everything you say, but forums like this don't change people's mind,, people will do what they want to do regardless of how much well intention are in your statements. If they don't believe, let them drink ALL the diet soda they want.Even though you might not notice the weight loss here are reasons diet soda is soooooo bad for you:
1,643134916Submit this storydigg
reddit
stumble How do you lose weight? Substitute diet drinks for sugary drinks. Eat low-fat foods. Just eat less of the bad foods -- it's all about the calories. We are told, "Just have more willpower."
These ideas are false. They are food and diet industry propaganda that make and keep us fat and sick. Lies by the food industry combined with bad government policy based on food industry lobbying are the major cause of our obesity and diabetes epidemic.
Now, more than 35 percent of Americans are obese, and almost 70 percent are overweight. This is not an accident but the result of careful marketing and money in politics.
We are told it is all about making better choices. If we all took more personal responsibility, we could stop this obesity and diabetes epidemic. We have been told there are no good or bad foods, that the key to weight loss is moderation. And, of course, if we all just exercised more, all of us would lose weight. These ideas hold us hostage.
What the Food and Diet Industry Doesn't Want You to Know
Diet Soda and Diet Drinks Make You Fat and Cause Type 2 Diabetes
Diet soda makes people fat? Really? How does that happen?
If losing weight were all about the calories, then consuming diet drinks would seem like a good idea. That's certainly what Coca-Cola wants us to believe in their new ad highlighting their efforts to fight obesity. They proudly promote the fact that they have 180 low- or no-calorie drinks and that they cut sugared drinks in schools by 90 percent.
Is that a good thing? In fact, it may be worse than having us all drink regular Coke (and the other food giants making diet drinks also push the same propaganda).
A new 14-year study of 66,118 women (supported by many other previous studies) found that the opposite seems to be true. Diet drinks may be worse than sugar-sweetened drinks, which are worse than fruit juices (but only fresh-squeezed fruit juices).
The study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, discovered some frightening facts that should make us all swear off diet drinks and products.
1.Diet sodas raised the risk of diabetes more than sugar-sweetened sodas!
2.Women who drank one 12-ounce diet soda had a 33 percent increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, and women who drank one 20-ounce soda had a 66 percent increased risk.
3.Women who drank diet sodas drank twice as much as those who drank sugar-sweetened sodas because artificial sweeteners are more addictive and are hundreds to thousands of times sweeter than regular sugar.
4.The average diet soda drinker consumes three diet drinks a day.
You might say that people who are overweight and just about to get diabetes drink more diet soda, but they scientifically controlled for body weight. And they found the artificial sweeteners increased diabetes independent of body weight!
This and other research shows how diet sodas make people fat and sick.
And that diet drinks may be even worse than regular sugar-sweetened sodas! How does that happen?
•Artificial sweeteners are hundreds to thousands of times sweeter than regular sugar, activating our genetically-programmed preference for sweet taste more than any other substance.
•They trick your metabolism into thinking sugar is on its way. This causes your body to pump out insulin, the fat storage hormone, which lays down more belly fat.
•It also confuses and slows your metabolism down, so you burn fewer calories every day.
•It makes you hungrier and crave even more sugar and starchy carbs like bread and pasta.
•In animal studies, the rats that consumed artificial sweeteners ate more, their metabolism slowed, and they put on 14 percent more body fat in just two weeks -- even eating fewer calories.
•In population studies, there was a 200 percent increased risk of obesity in diet soda drinkers.0 -
Just to be clear. I believe in science. A lot. Whole-heartedly. I'm a liberal after all. But I personally feel that nutritional science lags far behind other areas of science because of the many competing interests in our society.0
-
I would like to introduce new research. Aspartame was approved for use in 1981. The average life expectancy has risen from 74 to 78.
Drink your diet soda everyone, Aspartame will extend your life! That's a diet coke my guy is holding.
:drinker:0 -
This is from a letter signed by 255 National Academy of Sciences members, including 11 Nobel laureates. It's about climate change but includes one very important line:yeah your above post isn't more accurate than my college textbooks... lol
I'm sorry... did you actually read them?
I'm in a research class right now... honor roll student... and what you are saying is complete BS. You are wrong!
"We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet."
Ah... see I don't believe in climate change either... except that I believe that it has been proven to change... because you know... it's nature and it does that. Does man have an impact... if so, then the impact is negligible. Suggesting anything beyond that falls just short of saying that man can control nature... which has been proven that he can't.
So... controlled studies have their potential for error that can be controlled and essentially minimized, but qualitative studies have a tremendous potential for bias considering that it is highly unlikely that the participants of those studies ONLY consumed aspartame products. Therefore, the potential harmful effects can potentially be linked to other perpetuating factors.
You know, I've said all this before. Honestly, if I could link you to my text book, I would. But you know, climate change really is derailing the thread, and referring to another conspiracy topic doesn't really prove your point on this topic.
yyyeahhh.... the point of the post wasn't climate change - the point was 255 scientists and 11 nobel laureates all agreeing that science doesn't prove anything.
That is not what they said... what they said was science can't provide unequivocal proof... which is true...
Read some of the other posts... if science couldn't prove anything then why bother?
You are basically saying, "science can't prove anything so those controlled studies that said aspartame were safe is garbage, but since they can't prove anything I can cherry-pick whatever I want to believe in."
No... it doesn't work like that. Let me ask you a question... if I took a poll right now of all MFP members and let's say... 80% said they lost weight and ate chocolate... would you just assume that they lost weight because they ate chocolate?0 -
I would like to introduce new research. Aspartame was approved for use in 1981. The average life expectancy has risen from 74 to 78.
Drink your diet soda everyone, Aspartame will extend your life! That's a diet coke my guy is holding.
:drinker:
I
you!:laugh: 0 -
This is from a letter signed by 255 National Academy of Sciences members, including 11 Nobel laureates. It's about climate change but includes one very important line:yeah your above post isn't more accurate than my college textbooks... lol
I'm sorry... did you actually read them?
I'm in a research class right now... honor roll student... and what you are saying is complete BS. You are wrong!
"We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet."
Ah... see I don't believe in climate change either... except that I believe that it has been proven to change... because you know... it's nature and it does that. Does man have an impact... if so, then the impact is negligible. Suggesting anything beyond that falls just short of saying that man can control nature... which has been proven that he can't.
So... controlled studies have their potential for error that can be controlled and essentially minimized, but qualitative studies have a tremendous potential for bias considering that it is highly unlikely that the participants of those studies ONLY consumed aspartame products. Therefore, the potential harmful effects can potentially be linked to other perpetuating factors.
You know, I've said all this before. Honestly, if I could link you to my text book, I would. But you know, climate change really is derailing the thread, and referring to another conspiracy topic doesn't really prove your point on this topic.
yyyeahhh.... the point of the post wasn't climate change - the point was 255 scientists and 11 nobel laureates all agreeing that science doesn't prove anything.
That is not what they said... what they said was science can't provide unequivocal proof... which is true...
Read some of the other posts... if science couldn't prove anything then why bother?
You are basically saying, "science can't prove anything so those controlled studies that said aspartame were safe is garbage, but since they can't prove anything I can cherry-pick whatever I want to believe in."
No... it doesn't work like that. Let me ask you a question... if I took a poll right now of all MFP members and let's say... 80% said they lost weight and ate chocolate... would you just assume that they lost weight because they ate chocolate?
you're putting words in my mouth, and theirs. look at the quote i posted for reference.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions