Should I eliminate aspartame from my life? My Doctor says yes!
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Sorry to make an example of your post, and sorry if I'm wrong.... but you just dropped "because science".
In a previous thread that you started, you said that you were a chef.
Instead of assuming, I'm going to ask... are you a chef with a PhD or MD, or even a BSc. Not that that is required in life, but.... I'm hoping that it is required for dropping "because science".
What is with everyone's obsession with credentials on this forum?
You don't need a PhD to know the fundamentals of nutrition.
Of course, I don't disagree. Not only was I not criticizing your credentials, I also was not criticizing your knowledge. But this "because science" statement I keep hearing is a little bit too authoritative. Experts wouldn't even use that slang... and they probably got to be experts by keeping an open mind and not dismissing people with statements that convey a false sense of authority.
Oh come on now, you've made the appeal to science yourself by stating that you feed your family based on it.
0 -
It really isn't that heavily processed. And processing doesn't make something not natural either. Sugar is natural too.
I am still not seeing the science based facts that stevia is in fact worse than other calorie free sweeteners. If I am missing it, then please feel free to point it out.
Nah, you can figure it out. You're a smart lady... no need to have others do the work for you
Oh, I did figure it out. You decided to throw out science when in reality...yeah, not so much. I am a smart lady and can sense someone talking BS out their *kitten* pretty gosh darn quick. Full of it.
Then your senses are very poor. As is your intelligence.stevencloser wrote: »
Again, do the research. It is a heavily processed food.
To produce rebaudioside A commercially, stevia plants are dried and subjected to a water extraction process. This crude extract contains about 50% rebaudioside A. The various glycosides are separated and purified via crystallization techniques, typically using ethanol or methanol as solvent.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
It really isn't that heavily processed. And processing doesn't make something not natural either. Sugar is natural too.
I am still not seeing the science based facts that stevia is in fact worse than other calorie free sweeteners. If I am missing it, then please feel free to point it out.
Nah, you can figure it out. You're a smart lady... no need to have others do the work for you
Oh, I did figure it out. You decided to throw out science when in reality...yeah, not so much. I am a smart lady and can sense someone talking BS out their *kitten* pretty gosh darn quick. Full of it.
Then your senses are very poor. As is your intelligence.stevencloser wrote: »
Again, do the research. It is a heavily processed food.
To produce rebaudioside A commercially, stevia plants are dried and subjected to a water extraction process. This crude extract contains about 50% rebaudioside A. The various glycosides are separated and purified via crystallization techniques, typically using ethanol or methanol as solvent.
Have you ever done ANY research on it, or are you just asserting your opinion and copy-pasting a bunch of wordy data that has no bearing on the main issue?0 -
LOL, my shirt means I paid in, not got bought out. Though if Coca Cola became a client, I'd be quiet happy.YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Here's some actual analysis based on actual scientific study.
examine.com/faq/does-diet-soda-inhibit-fat-loss.html
examine.com/faq/is-diet-soda-bad-for-you.html
examine.com/faq/does-aspartame-increase-appetite.html
And, to be in before anyone cries "but the soda industry shills", the same site has this: v6.examinecdn.com/erd/sneakpeek7.pdf
Which is a long diatribe calling out food industries rigging research, in particular, Coca Cola!
Except wait a minute.... despite the fact that I appreciate you sharing links with evidence regarding soft drinks.... maybe change your shirt please?...... I'm no conspiracy theorist but .... uhm....
ok, maybe with that last link I'll look the other way..... kind of.... but.... not.... really.....
You're forcing me to use all these periods......0 -
I just posted how it gets extracted, right there.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I don't think there are any reputable studies for aspartame being bad, I hate it because it gives me headaches and causes me other problems so I avoid it (I can actually tell if I accidentally ingest something with it). That said when I was losing most of my weight, I used products with sucralose, sugar alcohol, etc., without it stopping my weight loss. I just think soda pop is junk in general, I stopped drinking it years ago for the most part. Once in a very blue moon I will have one, usually one with pure cane sugar, but I just think it is a waste of calories for the most part.0
-
"Production of Stevioside involves water extraction from the dried leaves, followed by clarification and crystalization processes. Most commercial processes consist of water extraction, decoloration, and purification using ion-exchange resins, electrolytic techniques, or precipitating agents"
From stevia.com itself.0 -
I am still not seeing the science based facts that stevia is in fact worse than other calorie free sweeteners. If I am missing it, then please feel free to point it out.
Nah, you can figure it out. You're a smart lady... no need to have others do the work for you
Oh, I did figure it out. You decided to throw out science when in reality...yeah, not so much. I am a smart lady and can sense someone talking BS out their *kitten* pretty gosh darn quick. Full of it.
Then your senses are very poor. As is your intelligence.stevencloser wrote: »
Again, do the research. It is a heavily processed food.
Ha! At least I am intelligent enough to not claim SCIENCE and then refuse to give it of course BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.
I posted multiple scientific links. It's not my fault that you're of subpar intelligence to comprehend them.
I don't even know what we are arguing here... you just dislike me, and that is fine.
But stop dishing out incorrect information... That would help all.-2 -
This content has been removed.
-
I am still not seeing the science based facts that stevia is in fact worse than other calorie free sweeteners. If I am missing it, then please feel free to point it out.
There are currently unresolved concerns about Stevia possibly affecting fertility. As far as I know, a lingering concern about a possible effect does put it ahead of the other sweeteners in the category of being "worse".
That's the only issue I'm aware of, there might be others.
The other thing to be aware of is that it's not some super-natural product, it's chemically extracted. Now, that doesn't bother me, but people who cling to the notion that it's an all-natural alternative should be aware of this. (Not saying you're one of these people, you're generally a very reasonable person about such things.)
0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Sorry to make an example of your post, and sorry if I'm wrong.... but you just dropped "because science".
In a previous thread that you started, you said that you were a chef.
Instead of assuming, I'm going to ask... are you a chef with a PhD or MD, or even a BSc. Not that that is required in life, but.... I'm hoping that it is required for dropping "because science".
What is with everyone's obsession with credentials on this forum?
You don't need a PhD to know the fundamentals of nutrition.
Of course, I don't disagree. Not only was I not criticizing your credentials, I also was not criticizing your knowledge. But this "because science" statement I keep hearing is a little bit too authoritative. Experts wouldn't even use that slang... and they probably got to be experts by keeping an open mind and not dismissing people with statements that convey a false sense of authority.
Oh come on now, you've made the appeal to science yourself by stating that you feed your family based on it.
Or maybe I am able to feed my family based on science because keeping an open mind and not pretending that whatever I know is absolute fact has allowed me to grow and make a great career out of it.
It's the connotation of "because science" that I don't like. Science itself is great.
Again, you have a chip on your shoulder. Stop worrying about a simple "saying" and discover the truth for yourself. At that time, YOU will be the one saying "because science".0 -
This content has been removed.
-
No problem at all. Continue living your life in absolute confusion about nutrition.0
-
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Sorry to make an example of your post, and sorry if I'm wrong.... but you just dropped "because science".
In a previous thread that you started, you said that you were a chef.
Instead of assuming, I'm going to ask... are you a chef with a PhD or MD, or even a BSc. Not that that is required in life, but.... I'm hoping that it is required for dropping "because science".
What is with everyone's obsession with credentials on this forum?
You don't need a PhD to know the fundamentals of nutrition.
Of course, I don't disagree. Not only was I not criticizing your credentials, I also was not criticizing your knowledge. But this "because science" statement I keep hearing is a little bit too authoritative. Experts wouldn't even use that slang... and they probably got to be experts by keeping an open mind and not dismissing people with statements that convey a false sense of authority.
Oh come on now, you've made the appeal to science yourself by stating that you feed your family based on it.
Or maybe I am able to feed my family based on science because keeping an open mind and not pretending that whatever I know is absolute fact has allowed me to grow and make a great career out of it.
It's the connotation of "because science" that I don't like. Science itself is great.
You missed my point. It's okay for you to have your interpretation of "because science", but no one else.
That's pretty much what you're saying.
Oh, you're wrapping it up in all of this language about making an appeal and shutting off discussion, but that's all it boils down to.
Don't kid a kidder.
I'm old and can read between the lines.
I'm also not impressed with how you use studies to support your position (they often don't), no matter how much you wave your credentials around. That says more about the weakness of your position than anything.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »And doing your own research instead of blindly following others would correct all of that hesitation and skepticism.
Yes, people should do their own research. You do yours. I do mine. If we happen to have open minds that allow us to further ourselves in life, then we share. That was established long ago.
But here is my last blunt attempt at the overall point. Using the shortest way possible:
Please everyone stop saying "because science". It immediately tells the science world that your science knowledge is anything but. Except the unsuspecting.
So you want thorough, in depth, concrete research and multiple scientific links from everyone and anyone who ever posts a factual reply on an internet forum.
Got it.
No. You don't got it. Inserting a statement that I (or anyone else) never said is not Got-ing it.
This was my statement, which I am only re-iterating because I just realized that there may be a small chance that there is a language barrier, which is the only excusable cause for misinterpretation at this point.
HERE. IS. MY. MAIN. POINT. Stop saying "Because science". Because stupid.
Stop asserting your opinion when its grounded in no scientific factual data...
It. Is. Stupid.
Learn for yourself. This isn't 2nd grade and there aren't training wheels to save you.
If you are using Google translate to get through this discussion, the joke is on me.
In other words... You are unable to comprehend a single thing that was relayed thus far because of 1) your inability to understand the English language, or 2) because you are extremely stubborn and way too prideful to admit that you are ever wrong.
I dare you to challenge anything that I have ever said in 700+ replies as scientifically wrong. I dare you...0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
I am still not seeing the science based facts that stevia is in fact worse than other calorie free sweeteners. If I am missing it, then please feel free to point it out.
There are currently unresolved concerns about Stevia possibly affecting fertility. As far as I know, a lingering concern about a possible effect does put it ahead of the other sweeteners in the category of being "worse".
That's the only issue I'm aware of, there might be others.
The other thing to be aware of is that it's not some super-natural product, it's chemically extracted. Now, that doesn't bother me, but people who cling to the notion that it's an all-natural alternative should be aware of this. (Not saying you're one of these people, you're generally a very reasonable person about such things.)
What are the odds...
I would rather take on Stevia's "risks" than take on aspartame. Pepsi is killing it in their products. The fitness industry is moving away from artificial sweeteners like sucralose (another class A example of a fraudulent artificial sweetener).
I like the Tom Brady Deflategate report verbage - "it's more probable than not..." which means I'll take my chances with Stevia over anything else.
0 -
^ The first time I have ever heard of "Pepsi is killing it" and basically, "I'm knowledgeable about nutrition" in the same sentence.
Go away, dude.0 -
campjackson wrote: »Hello Everyone!
I just got back from seeing my cardiologist with a glowing report that I am praising the Lord for giving me my health back. During our conversation, my Doctor noted that I had lost weight. I told her that I had been on Nutri System...and that I really LOVE the frozen food plan! She said that Nutri System was a good way to lose weight...but that I needed to watch the labels to make sure that there were no Aspartame in the ingredients. She went on to say that Aspartame usage will result in very slow weight loss...or NONE at all...and that I should stop the Diet Coke as it was full of Aspartame. Right then and there...I swore off "pop" for ever!
But when I got home...I noticed that almost all the diet foods and drinks have Aspartame in them. Now I am wondering what I am going to eat. And I need a second opinion. Any help would be so appreciated! Roland
That is because diet drinks and foods are NOT real food and you should not be consuming them. Eat the food God made. That is how many of my religious friends look at it. You need to be eating whole foods and drinking water, not drinking diet drinks that don't provide nutrition and are horrible for your body, same goes for food.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
I am still not seeing the science based facts that stevia is in fact worse than other calorie free sweeteners. If I am missing it, then please feel free to point it out.
There are currently unresolved concerns about Stevia possibly affecting fertility. As far as I know, a lingering concern about a possible effect does put it ahead of the other sweeteners in the category of being "worse".
That's the only issue I'm aware of, there might be others.
The other thing to be aware of is that it's not some super-natural product, it's chemically extracted. Now, that doesn't bother me, but people who cling to the notion that it's an all-natural alternative should be aware of this. (Not saying you're one of these people, you're generally a very reasonable person about such things.)
What are the odds...
I would rather take on Stevia's "risks" than take on aspartame. Pepsi is killing it in their products. The fitness industry is moving away from artificial sweeteners like sucralose (another class A example of a fraudulent artificial sweetener).
I like the Tom Brady Deflategate report verbage - "it's more probable than not..." which means I'll take my chances with Stevia over anything else.
They are killing it due to consumer pressure brought about by scaremongering, not because they have concerns about the ingredient:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/pepsi-removing-aspartame/0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »
Sorry to make an example of your post, and sorry if I'm wrong.... but you just dropped "because science".
In a previous thread that you started, you said that you were a chef.
Instead of assuming, I'm going to ask... are you a chef with a PhD or MD, or even a BSc. Not that that is required in life, but.... I'm hoping that it is required for dropping "because science".
lol I'm guessing you have credentials yourself?
That's actually not the point. I think general comments and opinions are welcomed by everyone. I certainly welcome them. And some of the most insightful comments I've heard often come from those without formal credentials.
But to convey the point, I have more letters after my name than within my name, and I don't have an overly short name. That's not used as a bragging tool and it's not even relevant whether you even believe me, but I say this to highlight the fact that despite my credentials, I don't drop this "because science" and I try to avoid these blanket statements that I see everywhere authoritatively stating that one side of the argument is clearly better than the other "because science", or that I'm right "because science". What people really do in that regard is red flag themselves as closed minded to those whose jobs in life revolve around actual science or health care applications. Especially when they quote high school physics and chemistry principles and apply them to topics of clinical relevance with highly erroneous assumptions of the variables at hand. It's just so.... exposing.
This includes people WITH credentials btw. I've met plenty in my line of work who say the equivalent of "because science" with great consistency, and time always reveals them to limit their own ceiling of knowledge and performance to a significant degree. Just because of their attitude.
I just don't get why people can't keep their minds open and digest info from both sides, and applaud whenever someone shares information regardless if it is for or against their point. Eventually, you end up picking a side for practical reasons, but you always keep the doors open and always keep learning.
I'd argue that you're merely building a straw man of MFP users who cry "science" without provided citations to relevant sources, when many citations of many sources have been posted time and time again. a large number of posts you may see are repeated answers to questions which themselves have been repeated countless times.
often a new poster will arrive making specious claims and quickly be shot down by forum vets who may or may not provide the relevant evidence in those particular replies. you may even be able to sense the weariness and sentiment that the issue has been addressed many times before.
Now, THIS, is a very thoughtfully worded and valid point.
But of course, when we step back we can recognize that repetition does NOT equal accuracy, or even intellectual honesty.
Just because people repeated themselves with citations (almost always one-sided) does not make their statements an established fact that becomes the science in their "because science". Well, to them it does. But in reality it doesn't.
Sometimes it gets to the point where I've seen people say their internet source written by Joe Blow is a valid citation just because it conveniently supports their argument, all the while "debunking" peer-reviewed journal articles with decent validity that make claims contrary to their beliefs (and food cravings), all in the midst of a huge high five fest. It's the nonsensical high fiving and gif-partying that ends up being the ultimate stamp of validity.
Mob-mentality. Internet Forum 101, I know. But this "because science" thing is too much of a red flag for those of us who are entrenched in this for a living.
I certainly agree on the contrast between repetition and accuracy. although I'd say your main argument in this thread is overgeneralized, notably from your "Joe Blow" example. but it is a vivid image, nonetheless.
regardless of the exact manner in which a particular claim may be combated (e.g. lolscience.gif), the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion, is it not?
also, MFP runs on gifs, brah.
0 -
Pepsi used to have "Pepsi One", which used Splenda. I haven't been able to find it in over a year. The good news is that they are going to take Aspartame out of all their diet sodas in August of this year.
I don't know about stopping weight loss but there is growing evidence/concern that Aspartame is a carcinogen. You will notice many "diet" or "light" foods are now advertising "Contains no Aspartame" on their product containers. Those that have dropped Aspartame have changed to Splenda.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
I am still not seeing the science based facts that stevia is in fact worse than other calorie free sweeteners. If I am missing it, then please feel free to point it out.
There are currently unresolved concerns about Stevia possibly affecting fertility. As far as I know, a lingering concern about a possible effect does put it ahead of the other sweeteners in the category of being "worse".
That's the only issue I'm aware of, there might be others.
The other thing to be aware of is that it's not some super-natural product, it's chemically extracted. Now, that doesn't bother me, but people who cling to the notion that it's an all-natural alternative should be aware of this. (Not saying you're one of these people, you're generally a very reasonable person about such things.)
What are the odds...
I would rather take on Stevia's "risks" than take on aspartame. Pepsi is killing it in their products. The fitness industry is moving away from artificial sweeteners like sucralose (another class A example of a fraudulent artificial sweetener).
I like the Tom Brady Deflategate report verbage - "it's more probable than not..." which means I'll take my chances with Stevia over anything else.
What's wrong with aspartame? It's got a lingering bad reputation thanks to some rat studies which were later found out to have been not applicable to humans.
0 -
perseverance14 wrote: »I don't think there are any reputable studies for aspartame being bad, I hate it because it gives me headaches and causes me other problems so I avoid it (I can actually tell if I accidentally ingest something with it). That said when I was losing most of my weight, I used products with sucralose, sugar alcohol, etc., without it stopping my weight loss. I just think soda pop is junk in general, I stopped drinking it years ago for the most part. Once in a very blue moon I will have one, usually one with pure cane sugar, but I just think it is a waste of calories for the most part.
Yes, that is the only problem with it. Some migraineurs will have a sensitivity to it. That's it.
0 -
PaleoMoxie wrote: »campjackson wrote: »Hello Everyone!
I just got back from seeing my cardiologist with a glowing report that I am praising the Lord for giving me my health back. During our conversation, my Doctor noted that I had lost weight. I told her that I had been on Nutri System...and that I really LOVE the frozen food plan! She said that Nutri System was a good way to lose weight...but that I needed to watch the labels to make sure that there were no Aspartame in the ingredients. She went on to say that Aspartame usage will result in very slow weight loss...or NONE at all...and that I should stop the Diet Coke as it was full of Aspartame. Right then and there...I swore off "pop" for ever!
But when I got home...I noticed that almost all the diet foods and drinks have Aspartame in them. Now I am wondering what I am going to eat. And I need a second opinion. Any help would be so appreciated! Roland
That is because diet drinks and foods are NOT real food and you should not be consuming them. Eat the food God made. That is how many of my religious friends look at it. You need to be eating whole foods and drinking water, not drinking diet drinks that don't provide nutrition and are horrible for your body, same goes for food.
lol strong 2nd post. I think you may be on the wrong website0 -
PaleoMoxie wrote: »campjackson wrote: »Hello Everyone!
I just got back from seeing my cardiologist with a glowing report that I am praising the Lord for giving me my health back. During our conversation, my Doctor noted that I had lost weight. I told her that I had been on Nutri System...and that I really LOVE the frozen food plan! She said that Nutri System was a good way to lose weight...but that I needed to watch the labels to make sure that there were no Aspartame in the ingredients. She went on to say that Aspartame usage will result in very slow weight loss...or NONE at all...and that I should stop the Diet Coke as it was full of Aspartame. Right then and there...I swore off "pop" for ever!
But when I got home...I noticed that almost all the diet foods and drinks have Aspartame in them. Now I am wondering what I am going to eat. And I need a second opinion. Any help would be so appreciated! Roland
That is because diet drinks and foods are NOT real food and you should not be consuming them. Eat the food God made. That is how many of my religious friends look at it. You need to be eating whole foods and drinking water, not drinking diet drinks that don't provide nutrition and are horrible for your body, same goes for food.
Right, so babbling on about religion is going to change fact based evidence.0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 232.6K 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