Sugar - the bitter truth

1246714

Replies

  • MinMin97
    MinMin97 Posts: 2,676 Member
    I was agreeing with you, just pointing out its everywhere.


    Additional info here if interested.

    http://www.aspartame.org/about/consumer-products/#.Uga8Zj8pjpg

    Here's a glimpse of what's in that link.
    Currently, aspartame is consumed by over 200 million people around the world and is found in more than 6,000 products including carbonated soft drinks, powdered soft drinks, chewing gum, confections, gelatins, dessert mixes, puddings and fillings, frozen desserts, yogurt, tabletop sweeteners, and some pharmaceuticals such as vitamins and sugar-free cough drops.
    Oh, yes. I got that.:happy: I was just reflecting back. Thanks for the info!
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    That is why diet soda is very bad because of the aspartame which takes a huge bad toll on the body.

    Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.

    Aspartame is a chemical, and like i said im not a scientist, but i have read where it is not a good thing to ingest. however, you may disagree, especially if you feel another person wrote an opposing view that you do agree with :)

    All food is made up of chemicals. Your entire diet is made up of chemicals.

    Yes, true. However, some chemicals are better for the body than others. Some are rather dangerous. I will choose the ones that are better for me,, i.e. that which is in real food, not substitutes.

    As for aspartame, etc.... to me it has that chemical aftertaste which i never could quite enjoy. Have you tried Stevia in coffee? to me it tastes bitter, (not sure if its mixing with the hot water)... it was worse than Jaegermeister.

    I would rather if i had the choice to eat real sugar, rather than fake sugar, or else how about not eating sugar at all or not much of it?

    I would rather eat a strawberry than to eat a fake strawberry, both have chemicals, but which one is better for you - tastewise, nutritionalwise, naturalwise,

    I think the strawberry would win, even though you COULD exist on the fake strawberry. but which is more appetizing? the real strawberry is my choice.

    How come after a certain chemical element comes out on the market, after a few years of research and using people as guinea pigs, (they really dont know the full effect till people actually start using it) and then the experts tell us such and such a thing is causing cancer.

    but you never hear about a real strawberry or banana causing cancer, do you?

    Stevia is natural...just so you're aware if you aren't.

    Thats what they say but why does it have a bitter aftertaste?
    Bitter aftertaste, "natural" and "good for you" all have nothing to do with each other.
  • mcjmommy
    mcjmommy Posts: 148 Member
    bump for later
  • _errata_
    _errata_ Posts: 1,653 Member
    What is interesting about those scientific studies is that they are always on mice, and they always include a dose that is astronomically higher than anything a human would eat in a day, or a year. The logical statement goes something like this:

    Chemical X causes Y in rats.

    Applied to humans:

    If chemical X caused Y in rats, then chemical X will cause Y in humans.

    There are two HUGE issues with this line of logic, which the entire scientific community completely ignores so they can get grants. They are the following:
    1) Human beings are not rats. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/science/testing-of-some-deadly-diseases-on-mice-mislead-report-says.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    2) Dose matters. If I consume a banana, I will get a healthy dose of potassium that will lower my blood pressure and provide me with several health benefits. If I get a lethal injection, I am getting a deadly dose of potassium, which will kill me. This concept is closely related with Hormesis. Basically, you cannot draw a conclusion from static dose amounts. A little bit of fasting is good. Starvation is bad. A little bit of cardio is good. A lot of cardio could cause a heart attack. A little bit of fat will cause you have a healthy level of hormones. A lot of fat could make you fat and cause a heart attack. A little bit of sugar will help me build glycogen stores in my muscle so I can lift heavier and longer. A lot of sugar will probably cause me to get diabetes and kill my pancreas.

    What I am getting at here is the concept of chronic toxicity. All things, including water, can kill you at a high enough dose. Therefore, for any given substance, a valid scientific study should ascertain at what does does a certain chemical cause chronic toxicity.

    Our bodies clearly like sugar. It tastes good. The question should be, "How much sugar is bad for us?"
  • ahavoc
    ahavoc Posts: 464 Member
    That is why diet soda is very bad because of the aspartame which takes a huge bad toll on the body.

    Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.

    Then why did I get terrible diarrhea and headaches every time I drank or ate something that had aspartame in it? Once I stopped consuming it, I didn't have the issue. Perhaps it's just me.
  • marciebrian
    marciebrian Posts: 853 Member
    in the links later
  • ritchiedrama
    ritchiedrama Posts: 1,304 Member
    That is why diet soda is very bad because of the aspartame which takes a huge bad toll on the body.

    Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.

    Then why did I get terrible diarrhea and headaches every time I drank or ate something that had aspartame in it? Once I stopped consuming it, I didn't have the issue. Perhaps it's just me.

    The same reason some people have allergies to bananas or oranges - does that mean they damage our health?

    Come on, be realistic here.

    An experience of something giving you a headache/diarrhea does not mean it is unsafe for the human body.
  • ThickMcRunFast
    ThickMcRunFast Posts: 22,511 Member
    That is why diet soda is very bad because of the aspartame which takes a huge bad toll on the body.

    Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.

    Then why did I get terrible diarrhea and headaches every time I drank or ate something that had aspartame in it? Once I stopped consuming it, I didn't have the issue. Perhaps it's just me.

    Those are two common symptoms of an aspartame allergy. It sounds like you are allergic.
  • Clovermoth
    Clovermoth Posts: 33 Member
    Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.
    [/quote]

    BULL....do so more research buddy. there is plenty that show that it is damaging to humans.
    *Headaches/Migraines
    *Dizziness
    *Mental Confusion
    *Slurred Speech
    *Ringing in the ears
    *Nausea
    *Numbness

    Sounds pretty damaging to me.
  • ahavoc
    ahavoc Posts: 464 Member
    That is why diet soda is very bad because of the aspartame which takes a huge bad toll on the body.

    Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.

    Then why did I get terrible diarrhea and headaches every time I drank or ate something that had aspartame in it? Once I stopped consuming it, I didn't have the issue. Perhaps it's just me.

    The same reason some people have allergies to bananas or oranges - does that mean they damage our health?

    Come on, be realistic here.

    An experience of something giving you a headache/diarrhea does not mean it is unsafe for the human body.

    Sorry, I should have said, unsafe for MY human body.

    And yes, I'm allergic to the world and aspartame too. So I eat fresh food at every meal every day. Sometimes, I even get a little chocolate, with sugar. And I don't think stevia has a bitter aftertaste. Perhaps if you eat it by itself, maybe? I put 5 drops in my vanilla oat milk, put that in my foamer and then put it all in my coffee. It's heaven.
  • ThickMcRunFast
    ThickMcRunFast Posts: 22,511 Member
    Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.

    BULL....do so more research buddy. there is plenty that show that it is damaging to humans.
    *Headaches/Migraines
    *Dizziness
    *Mental Confusion
    *Slurred Speech
    *Ringing in the ears
    *Nausea
    *Numbness

    Sounds pretty damaging to me.

    list of aspartame allergy symptoms:
    -headaches progressing to migraines
    -dizziness
    -nausea
    -GI distress
    -diarrhea
    -vomiting
    -mood swings
    -lethargy
    -memory loss
    -hives
    -swelling
    -rashes

    I'm allergic to sulfa-class antibiotics....I wouldn't come on here insisting that the entire world stop taking them because they are dangerous to me
  • hookilau
    hookilau Posts: 3,134 Member
    Maybe all the sugar and processed defenders should just create their own sugar and junk food only diet to sell to the unwashed masses as the next greatest thing. Then you can follow your sugar/junk only diet for the next year or so and come back here and tell us how great you feel and how healthy you are.

    Of course when you are youngster in your teens and 20s, you can get away with junk food diets and frequent alcohol binges but when you reach 40 and 50, things are a bit different.

    But hey you know it all already so proceed.

    :drinker:
  • Otterluv
    Otterluv Posts: 9,083 Member
    That is why diet soda is very bad because of the aspartame which takes a huge bad toll on the body.

    Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.

    Aspartame is a chemical, and like i said im not a scientist, but i have read where it is not a good thing to ingest. however, you may disagree, especially if you feel another person wrote an opposing view that you do agree with :)

    All food is made up of chemicals. Your entire diet is made up of chemicals.

    Yes, true. However, some chemicals are better for the body than others. Some are rather dangerous. I will choose the ones that are better for me,, i.e. that which is in real food, not substitutes.

    As for aspartame, etc.... to me it has that chemical aftertaste which i never could quite enjoy. Have you tried Stevia in coffee? to me it tastes bitter, (not sure if its mixing with the hot water)... it was worse than Jaegermeister.

    I would rather if i had the choice to eat real sugar, rather than fake sugar, or else how about not eating sugar at all or not much of it?

    I would rather eat a strawberry than to eat a fake strawberry, both have chemicals, but which one is better for you - tastewise, nutritionalwise, naturalwise,

    I think the strawberry would win, even though you COULD exist on the fake strawberry. but which is more appetizing? the real strawberry is my choice.

    How come after a certain chemical element comes out on the market, after a few years of research and using people as guinea pigs, (they really dont know the full effect till people actually start using it) and then the experts tell us such and such a thing is causing cancer.

    but you never hear about a real strawberry or banana causing cancer, do you?

    Stevia is natural...just so you're aware if you aren't.

    Thats what they say but why does it have a bitter aftertaste?
    Bitter aftertaste, "natural" and "good for you" all have nothing to do with each other.

    This is true. Also, not everyone can taste the bitter aftertaste. People have varying numbers of tastebuds and in different ratios. Some have more bitter tastebuds than others (I'm one) and are very sensitive to bitter tastes.

    Here are a few examples of "good for you" and "natural" foods that taste bitter to people sensitive to bitter tastes:
    kale
    eggplant
    dandelion greens
    broccoli
    brussel sprouts
    chard

    The list goes on and on. I would also like to say that there are dangerous substances that taste sweet (ie: radiator fluid). Taste is not a good measure of food safety.
  • BeachIron
    BeachIron Posts: 6,490 Member
    Maybe all the sugar and processed defenders should just create their own sugar and junk food only diet to sell to the unwashed masses as the next greatest thing. Then you can follow your sugar/junk only diet for the next year or so and come back here and tell us how great you feel and how healthy you are.

    Of course when you are youngster in your teens and 20s, you can get away with junk food diets and frequent alcohol binges but when you reach 40 and 50, things are a bit different.

    But hey you know it all already so proceed.

    :drinker:

    Nothing like a straw man argument to get the juices flowing . . .

    If you want to ignore science, please be my guest. I'll enjoy my continuing success and mixed diet, TYVM.
  • pcastagner
    pcastagner Posts: 1,606 Member
    I always laugh when someone learns the difference between correlation and causation, then stops there and learns no further. Keep going! Correlational studies are not altogether without value and many scientific advancements have been achieved using correlation to understand data. It's a step in the process. Science is about asking questions, not having answers and being sure about stuff. Once enough evidence piles up for a hypothesis, it becomes theory and we have reasonable certainty that it is true.

    Rats/mice are not people - this one makes me snicker as well. When someone points out that mice and rats aren't people, therefore a study done on rats is not definitive, they are just failing to understand how experimentation works, and that this is one step in the process. Of course it's not definitive. But rats are incredibly similar to humans and a really great way to experiment. Sure, experimenting on people would technically yield quicker results, but that would be massively unethical and immoral.


    Aspartame - it is still being studied and we have no actual conclusions about it to turn to from any research - yet. Which means either "side" could turn out to be right. HOWEVER, if you will ingest anything as long as it is not PROVEN to be harmful, you are not playing smart with your health. At some point in time, smoking was not proven to be harmful. First there were correlations, way before we had nailed down causation. Am I equating aspartame with cigarettes? No. I'm just saying some of the reasoning here doesn't really fly. I was in the Philadelphia area not long ago and Rutgers was looking for test subjects to participate in a study looking at weight loss and artificial sweeteners. There are still questions to be answered and sometimes I do wonder if we are a bit quick to ignore the precautionary principle and put things on the market. Is it PROVEN to be harmful? No. But has it been PROVEN to be safe? Also no. So question- who has the burden of proof, and why?

    Dosage makes the drug - watch out for this one too. Probably it does apply with aspartame, but this rule from toxicology breaks down in the field of endocrinology, where a smaller dosage can sometimes have greater effect than a larger dosage.



    But I reserve the most scorn for scaremongering doctors who go on crusades against sugar, fat, whatever and muddy the waters with their irrational presentation of evidence aimed at appealing the emotions swirling around someone who is overweight in our culture. If you are counting calories and hitting your macros, and don't have a medical issue requiring you to manage sugar, it's not going to slow your progress! I'm getting way more sugar than normal these days, and having no problem cutting. In fact, I seem to be leaning out faster than I was on my ultra high protein diet that I eat in the USA.

    There are four macros I need in my diet: protein, carbs, fat, and ice cream. They are all important and part of a balanced diet.
  • towens00
    towens00 Posts: 1,033 Member
    Maybe all the sugar and processed defenders should just create their own sugar and junk food only diet to sell to the unwashed masses as the next greatest thing. Then you can follow your sugar/junk only diet for the next year or so and come back here and tell us how great you feel and how healthy you are.

    Of course when you are youngster in your teens and 20s, you can get away with junk food diets and frequent alcohol binges but when you reach 40 and 50, things are a bit different.

    But hey you know it all already so proceed.
    Wow, how "crappy"
    No matter what I choose to eat, healthy, unhealthy, clean, unclean... however you want to label your food, if I eat too much of anything over how much energy I expend, I will gain weight.
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    That is why diet soda is very bad because of the aspartame which takes a huge bad toll on the body.

    Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.

    Aspartame is a chemical, and like i said im not a scientist, but i have read where it is not a good thing to ingest. however, you may disagree, especially if you feel another person wrote an opposing view that you do agree with :)

    All food is made up of chemicals. Your entire diet is made up of chemicals.

    Yes, true. However, some chemicals are better for the body than others. Some are rather dangerous. I will choose the ones that are better for me,, i.e. that which is in real food, not substitutes.

    As for aspartame, etc.... to me it has that chemical aftertaste which i never could quite enjoy. Have you tried Stevia in coffee? to me it tastes bitter, (not sure if its mixing with the hot water)... it was worse than Jaegermeister.

    I would rather if i had the choice to eat real sugar, rather than fake sugar, or else how about not eating sugar at all or not much of it?

    I would rather eat a strawberry than to eat a fake strawberry, both have chemicals, but which one is better for you - tastewise, nutritionalwise, naturalwise,

    I think the strawberry would win, even though you COULD exist on the fake strawberry. but which is more appetizing? the real strawberry is my choice.

    How come after a certain chemical element comes out on the market, after a few years of research and using people as guinea pigs, (they really dont know the full effect till people actually start using it) and then the experts tell us such and such a thing is causing cancer.

    but you never hear about a real strawberry or banana causing cancer, do you?

    Stevia is natural...just so you're aware if you aren't.

    Thats what they say but why does it have a bitter aftertaste?
    Bitter aftertaste, "natural" and "good for you" all have nothing to do with each other.

    This is true. Also, not everyone can taste the bitter aftertaste. People have varying numbers of tastebuds and in different ratios. Some have more bitter tastebuds than others (I'm one) and are very sensitive to bitter tastes.

    Here are a few examples of "good for you" and "natural" foods that taste bitter to people sensitive to bitter tastes:
    kale
    eggplant
    dandelion greens
    broccoli
    brussel sprouts
    chard

    The list goes on and on. I would also like to say that there are dangerous substances that taste sweet (ie: radiator fluid). Taste is not a good measure of food safety.

    I was about to post the same thing, but it looks like you beat me to it Otterluv.

    Taste can be deceiving.
  • pcastagner
    pcastagner Posts: 1,606 Member
    Bitter aftertaste - this is genetic.
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    That is why diet soda is very bad because of the aspartame which takes a huge bad toll on the body.

    Just so you know, there is not one bit of credible evidence which links to aspartame damaging humans.

    Aspartame is a chemical, and like i said im not a scientist, but i have read where it is not a good thing to ingest. however, you may disagree, especially if you feel another person wrote an opposing view that you do agree with :)

    All food is made up of chemicals. Your entire diet is made up of chemicals.

    Yes, true. However, some chemicals are better for the body than others. Some are rather dangerous. I will choose the ones that are better for me,, i.e. that which is in real food, not substitutes.

    As for aspartame, etc.... to me it has that chemical aftertaste which i never could quite enjoy. Have you tried Stevia in coffee? to me it tastes bitter, (not sure if its mixing with the hot water)... it was worse than Jaegermeister.

    I would rather if i had the choice to eat real sugar, rather than fake sugar, or else how about not eating sugar at all or not much of it?

    I would rather eat a strawberry than to eat a fake strawberry, both have chemicals, but which one is better for you - tastewise, nutritionalwise, naturalwise,

    I think the strawberry would win, even though you COULD exist on the fake strawberry. but which is more appetizing? the real strawberry is my choice.

    How come after a certain chemical element comes out on the market, after a few years of research and using people as guinea pigs, (they really dont know the full effect till people actually start using it) and then the experts tell us such and such a thing is causing cancer.

    but you never hear about a real strawberry or banana causing cancer, do you?

    Stevia is natural...just so you're aware if you aren't.

    Thats what they say but why does it have a bitter aftertaste?
    Bitter aftertaste, "natural" and "good for you" all have nothing to do with each other.

    This is true. Also, not everyone can taste the bitter aftertaste. People have varying numbers of tastebuds and in different ratios. Some have more bitter tastebuds than others (I'm one) and are very sensitive to bitter tastes.

    Here are a few examples of "good for you" and "natural" foods that taste bitter to people sensitive to bitter tastes:
    kale
    eggplant
    dandelion greens
    broccoli
    brussel sprouts
    chard

    The list goes on and on. I would also like to say that there are dangerous substances that taste sweet (ie: radiator fluid). Taste is not a good measure of food safety.

    I was about to post the same thing, but it looks like you beat me to it Otterluv.

    Taste can be deceiving.
    Stevia tastes bitter to some people? Weird, what kind of stevia are you eating?
  • wamydia
    wamydia Posts: 259 Member
    Changing my diet and my relationship with food has actually made me realise that sugar is not a big scary booggie monster, and that eating it in sane and well-planned portions is perfectly healthy. It was actually a pretty awesome discovery.

    It's not a big scary boogie monster, no. But I think that the biochemistry in this video would be worth your time to watch and understand. Our bodies literally process sucrose as a toxin, not a nutrient.

    ?? Although there are plenty of consequences to eating excess sugar overall, the body does not process sucrose as a toxin. A toxin is something that is harmful to the body or that is no longer needed by the body and is filtered out of the blood by the liver, digestive system, lymph system, etc. The body does not break it down and use it. In contrast, sucrose is broken down into glucose and fructose and used for energy in the body. Glucose immediately enters glycolysis, which creates energy for the cells. Fructose enters fructolysis, which also creates energy for the cells. The difference is that the product of fructolysis provides energy primarily for the liver cells and, when the liver does not need all of that energy, it may store some of it as glycogen and some of it as fat. If you eat an extremely large amount of fructose (by itself, which means fruit doesn't qualify as it typically contains glucose, fructose, and sucrose in combination), you can overload your liver as the bulk of the fructolysis process is placed on that organ, however you would have to take in something like 8 cans of coke to do that.

    The studies by Dr. Lustig are extremely flawed. His claims are based on an extremely high fructose load that puts excess strain on the liver. Most people never even approach eating that amount of fructose. Also, the studies that he based his findings on used an inappropriate rodent model as the animals in the study metabolize sugar quite differently from humans. He also makes some other blatantly incorrect claims. For anyone who would like a complete picture of Dr. Lustig's arguments and would also like to see the other side of the story, why fructose from fruit is processed in a completely different way than fructose from a can of coke, or would just like some basic information about the way the body really handles the different types of sugars, I suggest you spend your time reading this instead of watching the video:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/sugar-toxic-health-effects-sucrose-fructose_n_3599864.html