Diet Soda and Weight Loss

Options
1…910111315

Replies

  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    Plutodreams wrote: »
    It is impossible for us to know what effect inorganic compounds of chemicals have on the human body which has evolved over time without ever, up until very recently, been exposed to these chemicals.

    I'd just like to point out that man has been exposed to the compounds in aspartame for as long as man has been eating.

    Technically that is...well true actually, valid point.
  • steph7007
    steph7007 Posts: 41 Member
    Options
    http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame

    Aaron_k123. I'd like your thoughts on this article. Not meant for haters to bash. I truly would like to broaden my perspective. I believe in healthy eating and good diet choices. Not because I think I know it all. I realize this discussion seems finger pointing. I'm guilty of it in the start of the conversation. But from a biological stand point vs a healthy standpoint..... I really just want to obtain more knowledgeable on this. Again, this is just me wanting his perspective without any negativity from anybody else.

    I totally get you are a busy man. If you take a peek... THANK YOU.

    If anyone comes at this with the negativity screw you and get a life.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    steph7007 wrote: »
    http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame

    Aaron_k123. I'd like your thoughts on this article. Not meant for haters to bash. I truly would like to broaden my perspective. I believe in healthy eating and good diet choices. Not because I think I know it all. I realize this discussion seems finger pointing. I'm guilty of it in the start of the conversation. But from a biological stand point vs a healthy standpoint..... I really just want to obtain more knowledgeable on this. Again, this is just me wanting his perspective without any negativity from anybody else.

    I totally get you are a busy man. If you take a peek... THANK YOU.

    If anyone comes at this with the negativity screw you and get a life.

    I'll take a look when I get home from work okay?
  • steph7007
    steph7007 Posts: 41 Member
    Options
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    steph7007 wrote: »
    http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame

    Aaron_k123. I'd like your thoughts on this article. Not meant for haters to bash. I truly would like to broaden my perspective. I believe in healthy eating and good diet choices. Not because I think I know it all. I realize this discussion seems finger pointing. I'm guilty of it in the start of the conversation. But from a biological stand point vs a healthy standpoint..... I really just want to obtain more knowledgeable on this. Again, this is just me wanting his perspective without any negativity from anybody else.

    I totally get you are a busy man. If you take a peek... THANK YOU.

    If anyone comes at this with the negativity screw you and get a life.

    I'll take a look when I get home from work okay?

    Thanks! I appreciate good knowledge without rudeness. Feel free to email me your thoughts.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    steph7007 wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    steph7007 wrote: »
    http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame

    Aaron_k123. I'd like your thoughts on this article. Not meant for haters to bash. I truly would like to broaden my perspective. I believe in healthy eating and good diet choices. Not because I think I know it all. I realize this discussion seems finger pointing. I'm guilty of it in the start of the conversation. But from a biological stand point vs a healthy standpoint..... I really just want to obtain more knowledgeable on this. Again, this is just me wanting his perspective without any negativity from anybody else.

    I totally get you are a busy man. If you take a peek... THANK YOU.

    If anyone comes at this with the negativity screw you and get a life.

    I'll take a look when I get home from work okay?

    Thanks! I appreciate good knowledge without rudeness. Feel free to email me your thoughts.

    I will post publically since you did if that is alright.
  • daniip_la
    daniip_la Posts: 678 Member
    Options
    steph7007 wrote: »
    http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame

    Aaron_k123. I'd like your thoughts on this article. Not meant for haters to bash. I truly would like to broaden my perspective. I believe in healthy eating and good diet choices. Not because I think I know it all. I realize this discussion seems finger pointing. I'm guilty of it in the start of the conversation. But from a biological stand point vs a healthy standpoint..... I really just want to obtain more knowledgeable on this. Again, this is just me wanting his perspective without any negativity from anybody else.

    I totally get you are a busy man. If you take a peek... THANK YOU.

    If anyone comes at this with the negativity screw you and get a life.

    I'm not Aaron_k123, but I know my way around a scientific article. I appreciate you trying to learn more about the matter before making decisions.

    I'm curious as to your questions, though. Everything in that link states that there's no harm to aspartame. Was there a particular section in which you didn't feel comfortable about their reasoning?

    (this isn't me trying to step on Aaron_k123's toes or answer for him. I just have an interest in helping others understand science as well.)
  • geneticsteacher
    geneticsteacher Posts: 623 Member
    Options
    steph7007 wrote: »
    http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame

    Aaron_k123. I'd like your thoughts on this article. Not meant for haters to bash. I truly would like to broaden my perspective. I believe in healthy eating and good diet choices. Not because I think I know it all. I realize this discussion seems finger pointing. I'm guilty of it in the start of the conversation. But from a biological stand point vs a healthy standpoint..... I really just want to obtain more knowledgeable on this. Again, this is just me wanting his perspective without any negativity from anybody else.

    I totally get you are a busy man. If you take a peek... THANK YOU.

    If anyone comes at this with the negativity screw you and get a life.

    I don't think there IS a difference between a biological and a healthy standpoint.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    daniip_la wrote: »
    steph7007 wrote: »
    http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame

    Aaron_k123. I'd like your thoughts on this article. Not meant for haters to bash. I truly would like to broaden my perspective. I believe in healthy eating and good diet choices. Not because I think I know it all. I realize this discussion seems finger pointing. I'm guilty of it in the start of the conversation. But from a biological stand point vs a healthy standpoint..... I really just want to obtain more knowledgeable on this. Again, this is just me wanting his perspective without any negativity from anybody else.

    I totally get you are a busy man. If you take a peek... THANK YOU.

    If anyone comes at this with the negativity screw you and get a life.

    I'm not Aaron_k123, but I know my way around a scientific article. I appreciate you trying to learn more about the matter before making decisions.

    I'm curious as to your questions, though. Everything in that link states that there's no harm to aspartame. Was there a particular section in which you didn't feel comfortable about their reasoning?

    (this isn't me trying to step on Aaron_k123's toes or answer for him. I just have an interest in helping others understand science as well.)

    Feel free, I don't own the internet.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    It is impossible for us to know what effect inorganic compounds of chemicals have on the human body which has evolved over time without ever, up until very recently, been exposed to these chemicals. There is a psychological desire to comfort ourselves into believing we somehow completely grasp the effect that a totally transformed artificial environment and way of life has on our health, and to turn a blind eye to circumstances, such as 1 in 2 people becoming cancer patients, which would suggest that some variable(s) recently introduced, might have an impact. I find it really interesting that so many people react with such outrage towards anyone who dares to argue an opposing view, or who even speculates that maybe, just maybe, we might not know everything about how certain chemicals effect our bodies. There is an industry at work that stands to lose a good deal of money should we question the safety of their products. The corruption of the fda is obvious, and it is difficult to deny they are in bed with corporate america, keen on propagating what they call "tobacco science," when we become aware of the fact that many chemicals and additives found in processed food and beverage, as well as gmos, are banned in most other developed nations. It would make sense when considering these issues to remember that doctors and "science" once claimed smoking was harmless. It's a fault of our egos that repeats itself throughout history and causes us to we think we know everything, especially when the proper amount of research has absolutely not been done and there is plenty of independent research out there which stands in open conflict with the bought and paid for majority opinion: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx
    I'm not going to come back here and check to see who is arguing with me. I'm just presenting the other side of the argument very briefly. While making no changes to my diet, I once lost 8 pounds when I cut out artificially sweetened chewing gum and beverages. I also then at once stopped getting headaches and my digestion issues completely ended. Do whatever you want with your body but don't expect everyone to blindly accept what corporations tell us, or to accept the "research" that they fund on the products that they then sell.

    "such as 1 in 2 people becoming cancer patients, which would suggest that some variable(s) recently introduced"

    I don't know if the rate is that high but understand that when you practically eliminate death from infectious disease and extend life expectancy to almost 90 years old there is going to be a significant increase in deaths from diseases we haven't yet cured, because frankly you are going to die of something.

    Cancer is something that every day you are alive you have a chance of developing, the longer people live and the more people don't die early to infectious disease the higher the cancer rate climbs. That is to be expected. Interpreting that as "we must be exposing ourselves to something that causes cancer" is a assumption that would need to be backed up by epidemiological evidence that rates of specific types of cancer have increased above the rates one would expect for a population with current life expectancies. If we, for example, dealt with the obesity epidemic in the united states so that rates of death due to heart disease plummeted I would expect the rate of cancer to increase. Why? Because those people who previously died early to heart disease are now living long enough to die of cancer. Morbid I know, but true. We all die of something, and if you live long enough chances are that is going to be cancer.

    " I find it really interesting that so many people react with such outrage towards anyone who dares to argue an opposing view, or who even speculates that maybe, just maybe, we might not know everything about how certain chemicals effect our bodies."

    Not sure if this is directed in part at me but:
    1. I'm not "outraged" in the slightest, I'm just working diligently to correct statements I view as being innacurate. Any emotion you are reading into my posts is you reading into it.
    2. If someone came in and say "I speculate that we might not know everything" I wouldn't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is people taking their personal speculation to the level of strong language such as "X is dangerous" and then advising other people on the basis of their personal beliefs.

    As for the rest I don't really see the need to dive into conspiracy theory.

    But we are exposing ourselves to something that causes cancer more now than ever. Life.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    daniip_la wrote: »
    steph7007 wrote: »
    http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame

    Aaron_k123. I'd like your thoughts on this article. Not meant for haters to bash. I truly would like to broaden my perspective. I believe in healthy eating and good diet choices. Not because I think I know it all. I realize this discussion seems finger pointing. I'm guilty of it in the start of the conversation. But from a biological stand point vs a healthy standpoint..... I really just want to obtain more knowledgeable on this. Again, this is just me wanting his perspective without any negativity from anybody else.

    I totally get you are a busy man. If you take a peek... THANK YOU.

    If anyone comes at this with the negativity screw you and get a life.

    I'm not Aaron_k123, but I know my way around a scientific article. I appreciate you trying to learn more about the matter before making decisions.

    I'm curious as to your questions, though. Everything in that link states that there's no harm to aspartame. Was there a particular section in which you didn't feel comfortable about their reasoning?

    (this isn't me trying to step on Aaron_k123's toes or answer for him. I just have an interest in helping others understand science as well.)

    Exactly.

    "These studies have not found any health problems that are consistently linked with aspartame."

    "Most studies in people have not found that aspartame use is linked to an increased risk of cancer."

    "Complaints of various health issues have circulated since aspartame first appeared on the market in the 1980s. But for most people, no health problems have clearly been linked to aspartame use."

    "Claims have been made that aspartame is related to health effects ranging from mild problems such as headache, dizziness, digestive symptoms, and changes in mood, to more serious health issues such as Alzheimer disease, birth defects, diabetes, Gulf War syndrome, attention deficit disorders, Parkinson disease, lupus, multiple sclerosis, and seizures. However, studies done to date have not found any consistent evidence of harm."

    "Aside from the effects in people with phenylketonuria, no health problems have been consistently linked to aspartame use. Research on artificial sweeteners, including aspartame, continues today."
  • steph7007
    steph7007 Posts: 41 Member
    Options
    geneticsteacher wrote: »
    steph7007 wrote: »
    http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame

    Aaron_k123. I'd like your thoughts on this article. Not meant for haters to bash. I truly would like to broaden my perspective. I believe in healthy eating and good diet choices. Not because I think I know it all. I realize this discussion seems finger pointing. I'm guilty of it in the start of the conversation. But from a biological stand point vs a healthy standpoint..... I really just want to obtain more knowledgeable on this. Again, this is just me wanting his perspective without any negativity from anybody else.

    I totally get you are a busy man. If you take a peek... THANK YOU.

    If anyone comes at this with the negativity screw you and get a life.

    I don't think there IS a difference between a biological and a healthy standpoint.

    Sure there is if you dive into gentic cell makeup. But I seriously do not want to do that.
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    It is impossible for us to know what effect inorganic compounds of chemicals have on the human body which has evolved over time without ever, up until very recently, been exposed to these chemicals. There is a psychological desire to comfort ourselves into believing we somehow completely grasp the effect that a totally transformed artificial environment and way of life has on our health, and to turn a blind eye to circumstances, such as 1 in 2 people becoming cancer patients, which would suggest that some variable(s) recently introduced, might have an impact. I find it really interesting that so many people react with such outrage towards anyone who dares to argue an opposing view, or who even speculates that maybe, just maybe, we might not know everything about how certain chemicals effect our bodies. There is an industry at work that stands to lose a good deal of money should we question the safety of their products. The corruption of the fda is obvious, and it is difficult to deny they are in bed with corporate america, keen on propagating what they call "tobacco science," when we become aware of the fact that many chemicals and additives found in processed food and beverage, as well as gmos, are banned in most other developed nations. It would make sense when considering these issues to remember that doctors and "science" once claimed smoking was harmless. It's a fault of our egos that repeats itself throughout history and causes us to we think we know everything, especially when the proper amount of research has absolutely not been done and there is plenty of independent research out there which stands in open conflict with the bought and paid for majority opinion: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx
    I'm not going to come back here and check to see who is arguing with me. I'm just presenting the other side of the argument very briefly. While making no changes to my diet, I once lost 8 pounds when I cut out artificially sweetened chewing gum and beverages. I also then at once stopped getting headaches and my digestion issues completely ended. Do whatever you want with your body but don't expect everyone to blindly accept what corporations tell us, or to accept the "research" that they fund on the products that they then sell.

    "such as 1 in 2 people becoming cancer patients, which would suggest that some variable(s) recently introduced"

    I don't know if the rate is that high but understand that when you practically eliminate death from infectious disease and extend life expectancy to almost 90 years old there is going to be a significant increase in deaths from diseases we haven't yet cured, because frankly you are going to die of something.

    Cancer is something that every day you are alive you have a chance of developing, the longer people live and the more people don't die early to infectious disease the higher the cancer rate climbs. That is to be expected. Interpreting that as "we must be exposing ourselves to something that causes cancer" is a assumption that would need to be backed up by epidemiological evidence that rates of specific types of cancer have increased above the rates one would expect for a population with current life expectancies. If we, for example, dealt with the obesity epidemic in the united states so that rates of death due to heart disease plummeted I would expect the rate of cancer to increase. Why? Because those people who previously died early to heart disease are now living long enough to die of cancer. Morbid I know, but true. We all die of something, and if you live long enough chances are that is going to be cancer.

    " I find it really interesting that so many people react with such outrage towards anyone who dares to argue an opposing view, or who even speculates that maybe, just maybe, we might not know everything about how certain chemicals effect our bodies."

    Not sure if this is directed in part at me but:
    1. I'm not "outraged" in the slightest, I'm just working diligently to correct statements I view as being innacurate. Any emotion you are reading into my posts is you reading into it.
    2. If someone came in and say "I speculate that we might not know everything" I wouldn't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is people taking their personal speculation to the level of strong language such as "X is dangerous" and then advising other people on the basis of their personal beliefs.

    As for the rest I don't really see the need to dive into conspiracy theory.

    But we are exposing ourselves to something that causes cancer more now than ever. Life.

    Yes!

    I completely agree that our increased chances of developing cancer in our lifetime is mostly due to our expanding longevity. It's easier to not die of cancer if your lifespan is only 50 years, for example. Increase that to 100 years, and you've mathematically doubled your risk - statistically speaking - of developing cancer at some point in your extended life because you've doubled the time frame in which you can actually *get* cancer.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    @steph7007

    Taking a quick lunch so I thought I'd start in on this section by section. I'm not going to copy the whole text because it will be too long but I'll copy the section header and give my thoughts for each. Based on your link:

    http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame

    "What is aspartame?" Agree with everything stated in that section, seems accurate to me. If anything it omits that the phenylalanine carboxyl is additionally methylated but that is just an error of ommission not innacurate.

    "How are people exposed to aspartame?" I swear to god I did not know this article existed when I wrote my post on aspartame yet this is exactly the point I made (didn't plagarize this), agree with it completely. Totally accurate

    "How is aspartame regulated?" I don't know the exact ADI of aspartame but I have no reason to doubt this article so far and what they say about ADI is correct. I would note that ADI is VERY conservative and typically speaking you can go above the ADI of something with no adverse effects. Shouldn't think that ADI means if you have more than that it is somehow dangerous, its basically just a really low bar set for total safety.


    "Does aspartame cause cancer?" I mean what they say here is true but they don't even attempt to answer the question in the header itself, they basically just say "its hard to tell with studies" which is true. I would add to this that to date there hasn't been any evidence suggesting that aspartame is a carcinogen nor any reason to suspect it would be given what it is.

    "Studies done in the lab" I agree with this. The study they are refering to that was called into question was Soffritti et al. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805418/ In that study they chose to conduct the study using Sprague-Dawley rats, which is a breed of rat used for cancer modeling because over 50% of them naturally develop tumors due to genetic defects. The paper showed pictures of rats covered with tumors and although their actual results for aspartame were not significantly different than those for their control group the media ran with it because of the pictures of rats covered in tumors (something, again, that happens to Sprague-Dawley rats anyways. Recently the same kind of b.s. was pulled with GMOs by a group lead by Serilini where they used Sprague-Dawley rats and held up tumor covered rats showing how bad GMOs were. Its clearly done intentionally and its unethical.

    "Studies in people" Studies in people tend to be epidemiological, in otherwords they look for increases in incidence in populations and attempt to correlate that to something else in the region as a possible cause. They are highly speculative and are not at all conclusive until a model for that cause can be generated and methodically tested. There has been no causative link between cancer and aspartame in animals let alone humans. Ethical researchers and studies will admit in their conclusions that the connections are speculative, unethical or lazy internet bloggers will leave that part out when they point to such studies as proof of carcinogenicity. I agree with this article thusfar.

    "What expert agencies say" Yeah, that is true.

    "Does aspartame cause any other health problems?" Yeah I'd agree with that. Lots of anecdotes out there and not much else.

    "Phenylketonuria (PKU)" Agree with this. People with PKU should avoid asparatme due to phenylalanine content. That is a legit reason to avoid it. That said PKU is not subtle, if you have it you know you have it.

    "Other health complaints" Yup, lots of anecdotes out there.

    "Should I limit my exposure to aspartame?" Agree with this. If you want to avoid it here is how you can, but there is no scientific evidence to suggest that you need to avoid it.


    Overall I think this is an accurate article and a good resource.
  • steph7007
    steph7007 Posts: 41 Member
    Options
    daniip_la wrote: »
    steph7007 wrote: »
    http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame

    Aaron_k123. I'd like your thoughts on this article. Not meant for haters to bash. I truly would like to broaden my perspective. I believe in healthy eating and good diet choices. Not because I think I know it all. I realize this discussion seems finger pointing. I'm guilty of it in the start of the conversation. But from a biological stand point vs a healthy standpoint..... I really just want to obtain more knowledgeable on this. Again, this is just me wanting his perspective without any negativity from anybody else.

    I totally get you are a busy man. If you take a peek... THANK YOU.

    If anyone comes at this with the negativity screw you and get a life.

    I'm not Aaron_k123, but I know my way around a scientific article. I appreciate you trying to learn more about the matter before making decisions.

    I'm curious as to your questions, though. Everything in that link states that there's no harm to aspartame. Was there a particular section in which you didn't feel comfortable about their reasoning?

    (this isn't me trying to step on Aaron_k123's toes or answer for him. I just have an interest in helping others understand science as well.)

    Thanks for not being rude. I'm moreso wondering the amount of research that has been done. I did not ask that question at all. For example people say that using weed does not help people who suffer from, let's say cancer. But working with people who have had cancer and that uses weed as medicine, I'd say differently. You can totally see how it helps when you think about feeding your body. So back to my question I totally did not ask.... how much true research has been done? Only from what I've read, pro-longed usage can have some depletion of overall kidney function. I truly do not know the levels of research and was curious. Like is this something that is always thought about in the mind of the science community?. Is it laughed about it being just a fear among people? Or does someone who really drink one or more sodas a day have a chance of depleting their overall kidney function. Are having it cause other internal damage. I just love to learn and I had a very negative view of it at first. So naturally I have questions and if they can be answered in a respectful manner go have at it.

    If youre negative, shhhhhhhhhhh......
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    I'm still chuckling that that cancer webpage used the same point about fruit juice and methanol that I did several years ago on my post. I came up with that on my own just from knowing about sources of methanol and the metabolic breakdown of a methylated carboxyl like that, hadn't read it anywhere...but yeah, its an easy conclusion to come to if you think about it so I can't claim its unique. I didn't get it from that page though, just funny that they say pretty much exactly the same thing.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Options
    steph7007 wrote: »
    daniip_la wrote: »
    steph7007 wrote: »
    http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame

    Aaron_k123. I'd like your thoughts on this article. Not meant for haters to bash. I truly would like to broaden my perspective. I believe in healthy eating and good diet choices. Not because I think I know it all. I realize this discussion seems finger pointing. I'm guilty of it in the start of the conversation. But from a biological stand point vs a healthy standpoint..... I really just want to obtain more knowledgeable on this. Again, this is just me wanting his perspective without any negativity from anybody else.

    I totally get you are a busy man. If you take a peek... THANK YOU.

    If anyone comes at this with the negativity screw you and get a life.

    I'm not Aaron_k123, but I know my way around a scientific article. I appreciate you trying to learn more about the matter before making decisions.

    I'm curious as to your questions, though. Everything in that link states that there's no harm to aspartame. Was there a particular section in which you didn't feel comfortable about their reasoning?

    (this isn't me trying to step on Aaron_k123's toes or answer for him. I just have an interest in helping others understand science as well.)

    Thanks for not being rude. I'm moreso wondering the amount of research that has been done. I did not ask that question at all. For example people say that using weed does not help people who suffer from, let's say cancer. But working with people who have had cancer and that uses weed as medicine, I'd say differently. You can totally see how it helps when you think about feeding your body. So back to my question I totally did not ask.... how much true research has been done? Only from what I've read, pro-longed usage can have some depletion of overall kidney function. I truly do not know the levels of research and was curious. Like is this something that is always thought about in the mind of the science community?. Is it laughed about it being just a fear among people? Or does someone who really drink one or more sodas a day have a chance of depleting their overall kidney function. Are having it cause other internal damage. I just love to learn and I had a very negative view of it at first. So naturally I have questions and if they can be answered in a respectful manner go have at it.

    If youre negative, shhhhhhhhhhh......

    OT but I haven't heard many people say weed doesn't help cancer. It does increase appetite and help relieve pain and anxiety. I don't think it cures cancer as I know of way too many cancer patients who used it and still died a horrible death from cancer but it did make their last months much more bearable and gave them better quality of life.

Categories