Sugar-free drinks: the good, the bad and the 'we should be aware'!
Options
Replies
-
lithezebra wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Personally I try and stay away from anything diet, including artificial sugars, particularly aspartame .
Sure they may be deemed "safe" , but I just can not make myself take the risk, just in case future studies prove the current ones wrong. Something just doesn't sit right with me when it comes to this stuff.
My gut feeling says stay away, it hasn't steered me wrong yet...
Following that logic, how do you eat anything, if you're worried that future studies may prove current ones wrong?
They aren't currently deemed safe. Aspartame and Sucralose are linked to blood cancers. Saccharine is linked to unhealthy changes in gut microbiota. Future research might prove that wrong. I'm not waiting.
And there isn't much information on ace-K.
I just, I mean, I just can't, GWAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1308408/why-aspartame-isnt-scary/p1
You can't what? Can't read a study?
I certainly can. Although the article you posted didn't provide a reference list. It appears the article references a study done on mice, and some small sample size studies that show nothing more than some correlation not implying causation.
Have you read all the studies linked to in this thread, and in the thread that's been linked to?
The American Cancer Society are quite clear on the subject.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame
Do you have anything to refute the following....Studies done in the lab
Many studies have looked for health effects in lab animals fed aspartame, often in doses higher than 4,000 mg/kg per day over their lifetimes. These studies have not found any health problems that are consistently linked with aspartame.
Two studies published by a group of Italian researchers suggested that very high doses of aspartame might increase the risk of some blood-related cancers (leukemias and lymphomas) in rats. However, both the FDA and the EFSA have called these results into question, citing a lack of some important data in the published studies and other concerns.
Studies in people
Most studies in people have not found that aspartame use is linked to an increased risk of cancer.
One early study suggested that an increased rate of brain tumors in the US during the 1980s might have been related to aspartame use. However, according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the increase in brain tumor rates actually began back in the early 1970s, well before aspartame was in use. And most of the increase was seen in people age 70 and older, a group that was not exposed to the highest doses of aspartame, which might also make this link less likely. Other studies have not found an increase in brain tumors related to aspartame use.
In the largest study of this issue, researchers from the NCI looked at cancer rates in more than 500,000 older adults. The study found that, compared to people who did not drink aspartame-containing beverages, those who did drink them did not have an increased risk of lymphomas, leukemias, or brain tumors.
A recent study of more than 125,000 people found a link between consumption of aspartame sweetened soda and the risk of leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma in men, but not in women. Since it also found a link between sugar sweetened soda and lymphoma in men, the researchers concluded that the links they found could be explained by chance.
What expert agencies say
Expert agencies in the United States and elsewhere that have evaluated aspartame have found it safe for use.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the use of aspartame and other artificial sweeteners in the United States. In 2007, the FDA stated:
Considering results from the large number of studies on aspartame's safety, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies, a recently reported large epidemiology study with negative associations between the use of aspartame and the occurrence of tumors, and negative findings from a series of three transgenic mouse assays, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assesses the safety of sweeteners such as aspartame in the European Union. According to a 2009 report from its Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food:
Overall, the Panel concluded, on the basis of all the evidence currently available… that there is no indication of any genotoxic or carcinogenic potential of aspartame and that there is no reason to revise the previously established ADI for aspartame of 40 mg/kg [body weight].
Though research into a possible link between aspartame and cancer continues, these agencies agree that studies done so far have not found such a link.0 -
No, it is the deluded that think they can spend a weekend on GoogleU and then think they are an extreme researcher. Again, 8 years in college learning how to actually conduct research versus a few weekends on GoogleU. The problem is you don't understand science or research so you just go looking for information that agrees with what you already believe and you ignore what is inconvenient to your "truth".ronjsteele1 wrote: »This is absolutely untrue. If you people think that only "scientists" can do any worthwhile research you are deluded.
I would be that JA. The links you posted above is a lot diddly squat, which I will get to shortly. And you still have nothing.ronjsteele1 wrote: »And to the JA that said "I have nothing," I feel absolutely no inclination to add diddly squat here.
Then stop posting on this thread. Problem solved.ronjsteele1 wrote: »I "have" plenty but adding to this will only prolong a thread I have give way too much time to already.
Most of the people on this forum are wiling to learn, the problem is that you add nothing of value, except baseless assertions and rants.ronjsteele1 wrote: »I'm well aware of the waste of time it is to try and teach people anything that have no desire to learn or see the other side.
Anything in the alternative realm should be suspect, it's all based on prescientific ideas and magic. Alternative medicine fails miserably when studied. Should we go back to bloodletting and praying to the god Toth?ronjsteele1 wrote: »What is terribly clear on these boards is anything considered in the alternative realm is suspect and when I enter that realization, I'm just done.
Why would you bring up vioxx in a conversation about artificial sweeteners? Oh, yes, because you have nothing of substance to offer so your only defense then is distraction. Got it.ronjsteele1 wrote: »Vioxx anyone?0 -
No, it is the deluded that think they can spend a weekend on GoogleU and then think they are an extreme researcher. Again, 8 years in college learning how to actually conduct research versus a few weekends on GoogleU. The problem is you don't understand science or research so you just go looking for information that agrees with what you already believe and you ignore what is inconvenient to your "truth".
That and spend their afternoons watching Dr. Oz.
As soon as someone brings out Mercola you've lost me. Seriously - Mercola.
I sure would like to know what the heck is up with the pseudoscience and anti-intellectual thing lately.
0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »This ought to keep you busy enough reading for a few weeks.
http://aspartame.mercola.com/sites/aspartame/studies.aspx (here's pages and pages of studies done - and not by mercola - he just listed them out).
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/06/09/the-end-of-diet-soda-huge-study-links-aspartame-to-these-major-health-problems/
http://www.mpwhi.com/peer_reviewed_research.htm
Nearly every "study" ends with "we need to research more." If there is that much of a question about artificial sweeteners that most of the studies are STILL saying this, it should give someone pause. If they were really that "safe" there would be no continued questions about them.
As with every "study" out there, follow the money. Because in the end, most of the "studies" y'all like to site have someone linked to the industry with skin in the game. There is no objectivity. The same goes for pharmaceuticals. The opposite is true of natural stuff too. Follow the money.
I took a look at the first 10 links from the Mercola website. First of all, Mercola? Is that really where you get you information about health? Explains alot. Anyway here goes:
1) study is from 1970. 1970! And it's mice.
2) tell us what type of study this was?
3) rats
4)rats
5) 32yo study which we can't access. But the title doesn't seem to indicate that it proves your's and Mercola's pet theory.
6) article triesubmission very hard with a weak correlation. Oh, and RATS
7) mice
8) rats
9) in vitro, n = 12. Oh, and read the conclusion, because, as usual with Mercola, he cherry picks.
10) same study as #2. Another tactic with Mercola, repeat the same bad data over and over. And as usual his followers will blindly accept whatever he says. I often wonder if Mercola realizes that humansare not rodents.
So, Instead of the Gish-Gallop, why don't you just post either one or two of what you believe are the most compelling studies showing harmful effects of artificial sweeteners in humans. Not mice or rats. Humans. My guess is you'll have some long ranting post about how you have no time to do that.
So, as I said before, you have nothing.0 -
Edit: I want to add that your personal attacks about trusting doctors for medical issues are legitimately upsetting. You don't know my life. You don't know what I've been through. You have no idea that you're stabbing a knife into a very sensitive personal issue because you want to make a point on an internet forum. Think about your words.
Nor do you know mine or what I've been through. I can say the exact same thing in return here. One thing the internet does not provide is tone of voice or inflection.0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »
Edit: I want to add that your personal attacks about trusting doctors for medical issues are legitimately upsetting. You don't know my life. You don't know what I've been through. You have no idea that you're stabbing a knife into a very sensitive personal issue because you want to make a point on an internet forum. Think about your words.
Nor do you know mine or what I've been through. I can say the exact same thing in return here. One thing the internet does not provide is tone of voice or inflection.
Yes, that's why I didn't say a word about it when disagreeing with your views. You're the one that brought the issue up to attack me with, along with a host of personal attacks. It was cruel and unnecessary and if you actually understand, then you would see that.0 -
John Welk, apparently you didn't want to take the time to read through every single study from the list of peer reviewed studies I posted. They are not all anti-artificial sweetener if you read through them. But then again, I should have known you really didn't want them posted. You just wanted to get your point across. That's fine. you think I have nothing - I think you have nothing. Because I have read through those studies (both pro and con) in making my choices. I could care less if you think Mercola isn't legitimate. I take what he posts/says just like I do any doctor or "scientist." With a grain of salt, comparing to everything else I can find. You don't have to like that, but it takes way more thought and brain power then lazily posting a "study" and saying it's definitive. I won't post one study because in my mind, one study is more of a skew then a conglomerate of studies that show a pattern over and over again. People can tit for tat studies all day long. If someone wants to make an informed decision they will read both sides covering a lot of ground (not one study each) and go from there.
Vioxx? Because it was FDA approved, of course. I mean after tons of animal studies and lying about human study results with vioxx we can trust the FDA with aspartame, right?. That's why I bring up Vioxx. If all one does is look at the history of drugs the FDA has approved and why they have approved them (pharmaceutical conflicts of interest all over that place vs. bad study outcomes) and what they've had to pull from the market, one would wonder why anyone would believe anything they say is "safe" means anything. Personal opinion. Mercola has more credibility then they do as far as I'm concerned (and I wouldn't buy any of his supplements either - follow the money). But the FDA says nutrasweet is safe so surely they're right.....I prefer to keep healthy skepticism on both sides.
We will obviously have to agree to disagree on this issue (and probably every other one relating to health) and that's fine. It's a free country. But you are certainly welcome to read through all of those studies (that you wanted me to post) and see if it adds any question to what you think you already know so strongly. If not, that's a choice you make. No, anything alternative is not suspect. Just because you say so, does not make it so. And vice versa is true too. But given what I've seen in my lifetime I'll hedge my bets on the alternative realm over the medical realm any day. My choice to do so. Enjoy your doctors and drugs......your choice to do so.
And to the person who said something about watching Dr. Oz - I don't and never have. We have no cable and rarely, if ever, watch the tube (is he even on regular TV?). Life is too short and I have way better things to do. You know what they say about assuming......0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »I could care less if you think Mercola isn't legitimate. I take what he posts/says just like I do any doctor or "scientist." .
0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »John Welk, apparently you didn't want to take the time to read through every single study from the list of peer reviewed studies I posted. They are not all anti-artificial sweetener if you read through them. But then again, I should have known you really didn't want them posted. You just wanted to get your point across. That's fine. you think I have nothing - I think you have nothing. Because I have read through those studies (both pro and con) in making my choices. I could care less if you think Mercola isn't legitimate. I take what he posts/says just like I do any doctor or "scientist." With a grain of salt, comparing to everything else I can find. You don't have to like that, but it takes way more thought and brain power then lazily posting a "study" and saying it's definitive. I won't post one study because in my mind, one study is more of a skew then a conglomerate of studies that show a pattern over and over again. People can tit for tat studies all day long. If someone wants to make an informed decision they will read both sides covering a lot of ground (not one study each) and go from there.
Vioxx? Because it was FDA approved, of course. I mean after tons of animal studies and lying about human study results with vioxx we can trust the FDA with aspartame, right?. That's why I bring up Vioxx. If all one does is look at the history of drugs the FDA has approved and why they have approved them (pharmaceutical conflicts of interest all over that place vs. bad study outcomes) and what they've had to pull from the market, one would wonder why anyone would believe anything they say is "safe" means anything. Personal opinion. Mercola has more credibility then they do as far as I'm concerned (and I wouldn't buy any of his supplements either - follow the money). But the FDA says nutrasweet is safe so surely they're right.....I prefer to keep healthy skepticism on both sides.
We will obviously have to agree to disagree on this issue (and probably every other one relating to health) and that's fine. It's a free country. But you are certainly welcome to read through all of those studies (that you wanted me to post) and see if it adds any question to what you think you already know so strongly. If not, that's a choice you make. No, anything alternative is not suspect. Just because you say so, does not make it so. And vice versa is true too. But given what I've seen in my lifetime I'll hedge my bets on the alternative realm over the medical realm any day. My choice to do so. Enjoy your doctors and drugs......your choice to do so.
And to the person who said something about watching Dr. Oz - I don't and never have. We have no cable and rarely, if ever, watch the tube (is he even on regular TV?). Life is too short and I have way better things to do. You know what they say about assuming......
If you took what Mercola said with a grain of salt, you wouldn't be providing his list of (outdated, handpicked) studies in an attempt to prove your point.
If you have a better list, one that isn't curated by someone who thinks sunscreen causes cancer and that AIDS isn't real, feel free to provide it.0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »John Welk, apparently you didn't want to take the time to read through every single study from the list of peer reviewed studies I posted. They are not all anti-artificial sweetener if you read through them. But then again, I should have known you really didn't want them posted. You just wanted to get your point across. That's fine. you think I have nothing - I think you have nothing. Because I have read through those studies (both pro and con) in making my choices. I could care less if you think Mercola isn't legitimate. I take what he posts/says just like I do any doctor or "scientist." With a grain of salt, comparing to everything else I can find. You don't have to like that, but it takes way more thought and brain power then lazily posting a "study" and saying it's definitive. I won't post one study because in my mind, one study is more of a skew then a conglomerate of studies that show a pattern over and over again. People can tit for tat studies all day long. If someone wants to make an informed decision they will read both sides covering a lot of ground (not one study each) and go from there.
Vioxx? Because it was FDA approved, of course. I mean after tons of animal studies and lying about human study results with vioxx we can trust the FDA with aspartame, right?. That's why I bring up Vioxx. If all one does is look at the history of drugs the FDA has approved and why they have approved them (pharmaceutical conflicts of interest all over that place vs. bad study outcomes) and what they've had to pull from the market, one would wonder why anyone would believe anything they say is "safe" means anything. Personal opinion. Mercola has more credibility then they do as far as I'm concerned (and I wouldn't buy any of his supplements either - follow the money). But the FDA says nutrasweet is safe so surely they're right.....I prefer to keep healthy skepticism on both sides.
We will obviously have to agree to disagree on this issue (and probably every other one relating to health) and that's fine. It's a free country. But you are certainly welcome to read through all of those studies (that you wanted me to post) and see if it adds any question to what you think you already know so strongly. If not, that's a choice you make. No, anything alternative is not suspect. Just because you say so, does not make it so. And vice versa is true too. But given what I've seen in my lifetime I'll hedge my bets on the alternative realm over the medical realm any day. My choice to do so. Enjoy your doctors and drugs......your choice to do so.
And to the person who said something about watching Dr. Oz - I don't and never have. We have no cable and rarely, if ever, watch the tube (is he even on regular TV?). Life is too short and I have way better things to do. You know what they say about assuming......
Drugs are tested in a relatively small portion of the human population before getting FDA approval. Very rare but serious side effects are not seen until the product is more widely distributed; it's an inherent problem with the drug approval system, but one without a solution.
That said, artificial sweeteners have been consumed by millions of people for years and years. There are not reports of similar widespread side-effects, and links to cancer are tenuous at best (and that's being very generous).
Comparing artificial sweeteners (since they all seem to be lumped together, even those that have been in general consumption since the 1960s) to a drug that was pulled off the market not long after approval proves how little you know about either the drug approval process or the research regarding artificial sweeteners.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »If you have a better list, one that isn't curated by someone who thinks sunscreen causes cancer and that AIDS isn't real, feel free to provide it.
I already provided it above. You apparently didn't read....http://www.mpwhi.com/peer_reviewed_research.htm0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »If you have a better list, one that isn't curated by someone who thinks sunscreen causes cancer and that AIDS isn't real, feel free to provide it.
I already provided it above. You apparently didn't read....http://www.mpwhi.com/peer_reviewed_research.htm
Oh, yes, that's not a one-sided site at all:On our site you will find lots of information about the substance known as aspartame and the effects it has on you, others, and the environment. If you have any questions or concerns about this deadly substance please contact us and we'll be glad to help you.
ETA: My favorite is the link to the "article" by Clark Howard, who is employed by CNN to discuss money saving tips because he is a "consumer expert". He's definitely someone I'd turn to discuss the reasons I should or should not eat/drink a particular product.0 -
So any thoughts much appreciated and any low-calories alcohol subsititutes members enjoy for that early evening moment when willpower falters! Cheers to you all.
Okay, I really want to answer your actual question, but I'm a little torn on exactly what you're asking ...
If you're asking for substitutes for alcohol in the evenings, I have been switching a lot of my 'bedtime beers' (or wines) during the week for tea, either unsweetened if it's a fruit-based tea, or with just a touch of honey for other things like chamomile.
If you're asking for ways to drink alcohol, just with less sugar/diet drinks, I took the suggestion of a friend a long time ago and started ordering "vodka and water with lots of fruit" when I was at restaurants. And when I say lots, I mean I wanted the entire rim to be citrus! Over time I've switched the water to seltzer/soda water or tonic and cut the fruit back to just one wedge of lime or orange. (Pineapple is awesome, but you have to kind of muddle it a little since you can't really squeeze the juice out as well.) Vodka is my preferred liquor, but this definitely also works with gin, and probably rum as well. For that matter, I've done the same thing with no alcohol at all - just 'fizzy water' with fruit. Again, citrus is the easiest because of the 'juiciness' factor, but berries or pineapple, and even some yummy herbs like mint or basil, are great if you muddle them a bit.
0 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »If you have a better list, one that isn't curated by someone who thinks sunscreen causes cancer and that AIDS isn't real, feel free to provide it.
I already provided it above. You apparently didn't read....http://www.mpwhi.com/peer_reviewed_research.htm
"Mission Possible World Health International" was founded by "Doctor" Betty Martini. She has received an honorary doctorate in humanities. The website also offers to sell me a detox and warns me about the dangers of vaccinations (including the theory that Zika is a government conspiracy to hide vaccine damage from the public). Do you have a list by someone who hasn't been the subject of fraud investigations for selling herbs to "cure" cancer?
This is who you are recommending as a good source for studies: http://www.mpwhi.com/our_founder.htm0 -
lithezebra wrote: »I'm staying away from artificial sweeteners. Drinking sodas isn't important enough to me to wait for more research. I like a glass of wine, or a shot of scotch, and I stop at one.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeteners-may-change-our-gut-bacteria-in-dangerous-ways/
+10 -
ronjsteele1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »If you have a better list, one that isn't curated by someone who thinks sunscreen causes cancer and that AIDS isn't real, feel free to provide it.
I already provided it above. You apparently didn't read....http://www.mpwhi.com/peer_reviewed_research.htm
And anti-vaccine claptrap on the home page. When you go BSC you might as well go all the way. How are these people allowed to keep their kids?
0 -
I get bad headaches from artificial sweeteners, so for me personally, deem them to be unsafe. A friend of mine had symptoms of lupus for years until her doctor suggested she give up diet drinks. When she did, the symptoms went away. I'm not here to tell you all to use or not to use them, but there symptoms and diseases that can happen with long term use. I had found a list of diseases or symptoms of diseases that are developed from long term use of artificial sweeteners a while back on the FDA website. Although the one I'm posting as a link isn't the same one, it still shows what I'm talking about. The choice is yours.
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/jan03/012203/02p-0317_emc-000199.txt0 -
Oh, and the FDA stopped reporting toxicity of sweeteners, especially when the reports were increasing. If they didn't stop the reporting, the sweeteners probably would not be on the shelves of the grocery markets today.0
-
ronjsteele1 wrote: »This ought to keep you busy enough reading for a few weeks.
http://aspartame.mercola.com/sites/aspartame/studies.aspx (here's pages and pages of studies done - and not by mercola - he just listed them out).
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/06/09/the-end-of-diet-soda-huge-study-links-aspartame-to-these-major-health-problems/
http://www.mpwhi.com/peer_reviewed_research.htm
Nearly every "study" ends with "we need to research more." If there is that much of a question about artificial sweeteners that most of the studies are STILL saying this, it should give someone pause. If they were really that "safe" there would be no continued questions about them.
As with every "study" out there, follow the money. Because in the end, most of the "studies" y'all like to site have someone linked to the industry with skin in the game. There is no objectivity. The same goes for pharmaceuticals. The opposite is true of natural stuff too. Follow the money.
This only kept me busy for the 15 seconds googling the third website you linked since I already knew the first two are not to be taken seriously on ANY topic.
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Collective_Evolution0 -
lithezebra wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Personally I try and stay away from anything diet, including artificial sugars, particularly aspartame .
Sure they may be deemed "safe" , but I just can not make myself take the risk, just in case future studies prove the current ones wrong. Something just doesn't sit right with me when it comes to this stuff.
My gut feeling says stay away, it hasn't steered me wrong yet...
Following that logic, how do you eat anything, if you're worried that future studies may prove current ones wrong?
They aren't currently deemed safe. Aspartame and Sucralose are linked to blood cancers. Saccharine is linked to unhealthy changes in gut microbiota. Future research might prove that wrong. I'm not waiting.
*And there isn't much information on ace-K, the sweetener that people rarely talk about.
Aspartame has and is deemed safe on all accounts and has been studied for the past 3 decades. 3! That's 30 years. 360 Months. 10950 days plus leap days.
http://seriecientifica.org/sites/default/files/scl_enc_butchko.pdf
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/3496.pdf
Two full safety reviews, one from 2002 and another from 2013. Both coming to the conclusion it's fine, the first one remarking how curious it is that there's STILL people who don't believe it's safe even though it's by far the most studied additive in food.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 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
- 977 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions